How can people believe Peter is the rock but still not be Catholic?

[PC_Master]

First off, the argument from silence really isn’t convincing. “We know they did it because it was so obvious that it never needed to be written about, and noone specifically wrote against it.” It just doesn’t fly.

As an aside, I am wondering, if everyone has the keys, does this quality extend to both of you.
Do both of you bind ‘stuff’ on earth, and is it bound also in heaven?
Just wondering…

I think we’d first have to agree that it belonged to all of the apostles. Second, I think we’d have to agree on precisely what it is. Third, I think we’d have to agree on whether or not such a thing was intended to be transmissible or not.

I’ve been up all night and this morning working on an intriguing linguistic puzzle that I’ve encountered in kaycee’s first link. I’m going to take some time, perhaps some days, in order to solve it or at least attempt a solution. I will try to do this from now until the beginning of June, and then for a while, I won’t be able to post much, if at all, due to some heavy academic summer commitments.

I know that there are some questions that were asked of me in recent posts, and I’m hoping to get to them after I crack this puzzle. I’ll try to catch up, God willing. I usually post in the Eastern Catholicism forum, so I have to keep up with those threads as well, but I’ll try my best.

I look forward to your results of whatever puzzle this is.

 

[Thing]

I think we’d first have to agree that it belonged to all of the apostles. Second, I think we’d have to agree on precisely what it is. Third, I think we’d have to agree on whether or not such a thing was intended to be transmissible or not.

I wonder what kinds of things the Apostles bound and loosed in heaven.

’ At that hour the disciples came to Jesus, saying…’

…Well the Apostles were indeed there, it seems.
Obviously they were given this particular power to exercise it.

Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning any thing whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven. 20 For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Does He cease to be in the midst of His people after a certain date?
So, whilst He was still alive He would naturally be with them, but when He is no longer available He will still be with them when two or more are gathered in His name. This would appear to extend indefinitely or for as long as there are people to gather in His name.

So if you, PC, and Mickey gathered in His name and asked for something, or bound or loosed something on earth - then He would do that in heaven - whatever you ask.
But I ask myself what if what you both asked to be loosed in heaven was at the same time bound in heaven, lets say, by Mercygate and I.

What sort of conflict in heaven would there be with conflicting requests coming in from His people regarding the same thing.
Which contradictory request would win the day.

I still think that He remains - as He promised - present with His people when two or more are gathered in His name. And I think I take seriously His commitment to act in heaven to ratify His peoples decisions on earth. And I think I would take seriously the Creator of the Universe’s granting of power to men to bind and loose stuff in heaven. It should be used wisely and above all, I suppose, in unison.
One Church - One voice.

 

[mercygate]

I wonder what kinds of things the Apostles bound and loosed in heaven.

’ At that hour the disciples came to Jesus, saying…’

…Well the Apostles were indeed there, it seems.
Obviously they were given this particular power to exercise it.

Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning any thing whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven. 20 For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Does He cease to be in the midst of His people after a certain date?
So, whilst He was still alive He would naturally be with them, but when He is no longer available He will still be with them when two or more are gathered in His name. This would appear to extend indefinitely or for as long as there are people to gather in His name.

So if you, PC, and Mickey gathered in His name and asked for something, or bound or loosed something on earth - then He would do that in heaven - whatever you ask.
But I ask myself what if what you both asked to be loosed in heaven was at the same time bound in heaven by, lets say, by Mercygate and I.

What sort of conflict in heaven would there be with conflicting requests coming in from His people regarding the same thing.
Which contradictory request would win the day.

I still think that He remains - as He promised - present with His people when two or more are gathered in His name. And I think I take seriously His commitment to act in heaven to ratify His peoples decisions on earth. And I think I would take seriously the Creator of the Universe’s granting of power to men to bind and loose stuff in heaven. It should be used wisely and above all, I suppose, in unison.
One Church - One voice.

mercygate pleads the Fifth Amendment!

 

[MIZER]

First off, the argument from silence really isn’t convincing. “We know they did it because it was so obvious that it never needed to be written about, and noone specifically wrote against it.” It just doesn’t fly.

PC Master,

Can you offer a reasoned explanation as to why it’s not convincing? I would purport that it’s not convincing to you because you don’t wish to be convinced. I gave you several examples one might use to persuade another that it does fly and all you come back with is, I don’t believe. Well why] don’t you believe something so obvious?

 

[Thing]

…the Fifth,
Typical American…

 

[mercygate]

…the Fifth,
Typical American…

When an American says “fifth” he frequently means “fifth of a gallon” – as in Bourbon. Now, the Fifth Amendment, that’s another thing.

 

[Thing]

Grand! I’ll buy you a fifth in the next life…

 

[MIZER]

I think we’d first have to agree that it belonged to all of the apostles. Second, I think we’d have to agree on precisely what it is. Third, I think we’d have to agree on whether or not such a thing was intended to be transmissible or not.

PC Master,

Do you notice how you frequently skirt around the question? Aren’t you here to find answers to questions?

The keys to the kingdom of heaven are very obviously a symbol of authority. Look at the 22nd chapter of Isaiah and you’ll see how the people obviously knew who the king’s prime minister was without needing to be told specifically or given a name. The prime minister was the man in possession of the keys to the kingdom. That takes care of what it is.

Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter alone although He extended the power to bind and to loose to Peter and the Apostles and certain disciples as a group. This was the group of men who were being groomed to be the leaders in the church. The One, Holy and unified Church. So, it is obvious, because Jesus was modeling His One Universal (for all and for all time) Church after the Davidic Kingdom that Peter and the tapped Disciples constituted the body which would have divine authority on Earth with Peter having the final authority and responsibility because He alone possessed the keys. That takes care of your first problem as to whether or not it belonged to the Apostles.

Was “such a thing intended to be transmissible?” Obviously the answer is yes, it was. Jesus intended His church to exist as one unified body of believers until his earthly return. Reason tells us that the only way for that to be possible would mean that this power, this authority, would be transmissible all the way to the “end of the age.” It’s obvious. So, that takes care of your third problem so, how about answering the question. I don’t think we need to agree for you to answer the question. Just answer it based on your own beliefs. If you think Jesus was talking to every single believer ever to grace the planet and that Peter was representing us all then that means (if we take this belief to it’s conclusion) that every single believer is in possession of the keys and every single believer has the power to bind and loose on earth and whatever is bound and loosed on earth by every single believer is also bound or loosed in heaven.

By asking these questions we are trying to force you to see the obvious facacy of your beliefs. Do you get it? If you follow your belief to it’s conclusion and reason through it, then that means all manner of sin (divorce, fornication, “reproductive rights” etc. etc. etc.) has been loosed in heaven. No way does any of this fly!

 

[Claudius]

And now let us put even more thought into this.

Let us look at the fact that Jesus did establish the Epicopate level but did not go further then that. Does this mean that the only true clerics are Bishops?

We see that the Bishops, the Aposltes, saw fit later to establish the level of the Presbyterium, what we most commonly think of as the Priesthood. Now to be clear, Jesus did not establish this. So, since the priesthood in the Catholic Church was established by the Bishops and not by Jesus, does this mean that it is invalid?

Another question, is the power that is given to the priest a power that comes from God or just from the Bishop?

Again, the Diaconate level was clearly not established by Jesus but was established by the Church, the Apostles, later. A priest can not give a man Diaconate power, only a Bishop can do that. Yet we often think of a Priest as being above a Deacon. The functions of these two offices are different. A Priest is afforded the ability to forgive sins but a Deacon may never do this. Also, the Priest is afforded the power to act upon the Host directly where as the Deacon may only act upon the Chalice, thus acting only the Host only indirectly. Deacons are also charged with helping the poor, were as the Priest are charged with feeding the poor.

Yet, with all this in mind, since Jesus did not establish the Diaconate, does that mean that it is illigitimate?

The Church in times past established several other orders that are now suppressed. Does this mean that the orders were never valid? Does it mean that the Church did not have the power to surpress them?

These questions begin to bring us down the road to understanding the Papacy. For indeed there is order in the Church. We also see that the order that Lord Jesus established does have power to act and established lower orders and we then can turn our minds to looking at the Apostles themselves and seeing if there is order even among just them.

What does it mean when Ignatius says that Rome has the Presidency?

What does it mean when Hermas say that Pope Clement has a Duty?

Here we have the building block that will build us up to the truth.

 

[Dunia]

How to prove that the Church is “a visible Church”? My Protestant friend and, sadly, my beloved uncle who converted from Catholicism said that the word ekklesia itself means “people who are called out.” So the church is “an invisible Church,” not a hierarchical organization.

This is from early in the thread an I haven’t read all the way through yet, so forgive me if this has been answered already, or if it has already been answered better.

The idea of an invisible Church is illogical to me. In Matthew 5, Christ taught, “You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.”

If Christ is teaching that we are to be a city on a hill which cannot be hidden, wouldn’t He be consistent with His own Church and place them as a beacon to the world?

I am a Catechumen, if that is the right word, who has only come to see the truth of the Church within the past couple months, but one of the things that led me here was looking at the history of Christianity prior to the Reformation. It makes no sense to me, either Scripturally or logically, for the “true Church” to have been underground and hidden for a millenium or more.

God would be working kind of anticlimatically, don’t you think, if He were to send His Redeemer to all of mankind, then send His church into hiding for a few hundred years?

 

[Claudius]

As for the quote from Origen, we must remember that he was ALONE in thinking this way. The Eastern Orthodox do not now even accept him as a Christian, but as a heretic and or apostate. They often at least tell me so when I mention that Origen mentions the Filioque, though he certainly was no alone in that thinking. We owe a lot to Origen for this work on the Gospels, the book completed in four columns that have helped us so much in unlocking the ancient pronunciations. Yet, Origen died outside the Church. Origen came to believe that he understood the Gospel better then the Church herself. Yet, by the end of his life, this understanding of the Gospel had lead him almost to the point of renouncing Christ. He didn’t as far as I am aware, but his writtings suggest that it would not be a big mental leap. For me it would.

We also have to look at what Origen is saying and see if it can be backed up by other Church Fathers of before his time or by the Gospel text themselves. We see that it can not.

The Syriac Matthew sets up a very PRIVATE conversation between Jesus and Peter. “I say, I to you, you are Kepa and on this Kepa I will build my Church.”

The Greek also sets up a PRIVATE conversation between Jesus and Peter. “Also but to you I say you are Petros and on this (the same) Petra I will build my Ecclesia.”

All the instances of the word YOU are in the singular.

Now, Jesus could have been telling Peter his part and that Later he made a point of going to each Aposlte and informing them also that he would make them foundations as well. Yet, it is not so much a foundation that Jesus is talking about. He says that He will build His Church on Peter. Now, when I build a house, I expect to find some land and build my house, foundation and all, on that land.

I certainly do not say this to diminish the role of the Other Apostles or of our modern day Bishops and Patriarchs. Yet there is a rallying point. The Patriarch of Moscow will never enjoy the kind of influence and ablity to instill and inspire Faith that the Pope has. He is a leader for all Christians. An objective look as the Pope today as well as Popes of the past show an office that has mantained its dignity even under some of the worste circumstances.

Really, to see Peter as the Rock, (as he most certainly was, unique in his office) does not compel the mind to become Catholic in a day. Yet it does compel the mind to get more information. It does compel you to find out what is really going on here. What we should NOT be doing is looking for a way that the Catholic Church can be wrong in their claims if for no other reason then that is the lazy way. It certainly is more taxing on the mind to assume any other meaning from Matthew 16:18 then the Catholic interpretation, as the Catholic interpretation is the most clear and simple. Yet so many will do what they can to find just this and instead of reconciling anything they just stop thinking, which is lazy. Lest we forget, Lord Jesus could come back any day now. The Last Judgement could be upon us before we ever expect it. So I do feel a certain ergency in insisting that the Papacy is true.

When we see that Peter is the Rock, and that even among the Apostles there is leadership we must them look to the Liturgical Churches and see who has maintained this correct order established by Christ.

Is it the Eastern Orthodox, who have Patriarchs above Bishops but have many Patriarchs that are equal? We must be glad that Caesaropapism has ended in the east but then they are left with no ONE leader.

Is it the Oriental Orthodox, who have themselves established into some five or six Churches that can “agree” but do not otherwise have oversight over each other, leaving us again with many Patriarchs who are more or less Equal?

Is it the Assyrians who have only ONE Patriarch that all must be loyal to? Yet if we accept them, we must learn of them that they accept the Pope in Rome as the successor of Peter.

Certainly, the protestant position of everyone is his own Pope, his own authority goes completely counter to the very idea of granting Power from one person to another.

Even among the protestants, the church of English which is most like the Catholic Church in form is far from the Church in substance. The queen of England being the head of their Church is direct Caesaropapism and is an afront to good morals in my opinion. In Political terminology, a King or Queen is a Military Dictator. Certainly we can not accept a man or woman who only attains his or her office by virtue of killing as the leader of the Church. If we are to believe anything, let it not be that.

No, we find over and over again, that Only the Catholic Church is faithful to the order established by Lord Jesus and his Apostles.

 

[PC_Master]

Again, way too much to respond to…

PC Master,

Can you offer a reasoned explanation as to why it’s not convincing?

You’re making an argument from silence. It’s like assuming someone’s guilty until proven innocent. If that person didn’t know they’d be accused of a crime, they might not think to have an alibi in advance. A prosecutor might say “well he was where we say he was” without proof. How ridiculous.

Likewise, you’re suggesting we should just assume that the papacy (and other things) existed, despite the lack of any evidence?

Why is it not convincing? Because it’s an argument from silence. For it to work, you’d have to establish not only that it’s possible for the papacy to have existed (this has been done fairly well by Roman Catholic apologists), but that it’s necessary to believe that the papacy existed. But on what basis can you claim this? From a lack of evidence? Surely not.

I might tell you that there’s an elephant standing in my bedroom right now. You might come to my home a day later, look in my bedroom, and see no signs that an elephant was ever there. Is it possible? Perhaps the room is big enough, and there’s a large door that an elephant could fit through, so nothing necessarily disproves my story…but with something that lacks plausibility, why should you believe it without evidence?

I would purport that it’s not convincing to you because you don’t wish to be convinced.

That’s an easy response for when someone rejects an argument.

What if I show you a broken table in my bedroom, and then claim that the elephant broke it when he was in here? Would you believe? After all, the table is pretty smashed up!

The truth of the matter is that you’d be more likely to accept a situation that seems more plausible to you. Perhaps I broke the table in anger, or something fell on it, smashing it up? Now, if I showed you a photo of the elephant in the room, you might just change your mind. Why? Because now there’s actual proof that really seems to indicate I was telling the truth.

Roman Catholicism as a whole has given the equivalent of the smashed up table. There’s no equivalent of the photo (no, I’m not talking about an actual photograph – just some conclusive evidence of some kind) in the early centuries of the church. So why shouldn’t I just believe the table was smashed up by some other means, and that the elephant (the papacy) is just an invention that seems to fit the facts?

Do you notice how you frequently skirt around the question? Aren’t you here to find answers to questions?

Answers to my own questions – not yours. Still, it’s not my intent to be evasive.

The keys to the kingdom of heaven are very obviously a symbol of authority.

No doubt. But Matthew 16 says that Peter will receive the keys in the future. So when did he get them, and do we know that he was the only one to get them? As for them being symbols of authority – I’d say they’re a literary device used precisely to represent binding and loosing.

Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter alone…

Really? Where did Christ say “I will give to you (but to no one else) the keys…”? Where do we see Peter uniquely receiving the keys? All we know (if we interpret Matthew 16 as pertaining specifically to Peter) is that Peter is one who will receive the keys at some point in time after Matthew 16. We don’t know who else, if anyone, might receive them, or even when Peter receives them.

…although He extended the power to bind and to loose to Peter and the Apostles and certain disciples as a group.

And what precisely is the distinction between the keys and the binding and loosing “authority”? Isaiah talks about opening (loosing/permitting/allowing) and closing (binding/forbidding). So what’s the Davidic equivalent for the eleven (in your view) – able to bind and loose, but not having the keys?

So, it is obvious, because…Obviously the answer is yes…Jesus intended…Reason tells us that…It’s obvious…

Your statements are filled with bits like this – this is all rhetoric, not supported logical reasoning. You say Jesus intended his church to be visibly united…but how do you support that? You say obviously the power to loose and bind must be carried “to the end of the age”, but how do you support that? You make far too many assertions without support for me to even begin to form common ground with you on this particular issue.

…then that means (if we take this belief to it’s conclusion) that every single believer is in possession of the keys and every single believer has the power to bind and loose on earth and whatever is bound and loosed on earth by every single believer is also bound or loosed in heaven.

Interestingly, yes – if we assume the binding and loosing bit to be an authoritative decision-making capacity. However, as it makes no sense to leave fallible man in charge of what is bound or loosed in heaven, I conclude that binding and loosing is not so much of an authoritative thing.

By asking these questions we are trying to force you to see the obvious facacy of your beliefs. Do you get it?

I understand that’s your goal…rather than seeking and understanding truth. “We’re trying to show you how you’re wrong!”

I just wonder what it is you hope to gain from this.

 

[pneuma07]

Thanks, JRKH and tomarin!

About Matt 16:18, he also has different interpretation

Matt 16:18,
KAGO [And I] DE [yet] SU [to you] LEGO [am saying] HOTI [that] SU [you] EIMI [are] PETROS [Peter] KAI [and] EPI [on] HOUTOS [this] HO [the] PETRA [rock] OIKODOMEO * EGO [of Me] HO [the] EKKLESIA [out-called] KAI [and] PULE [gates] HADES [of un-perceived] OU [not] KATISCHUO [shall be prevailing] AUTOS [of her].

He highlighted the phrase OIKODOMEO EGO. The phrase means “I shall building of Me.”

As far as I know, it should be “I will build my church.” What kind of explanation shall I give to him? I don’t understand Greek.*

Hi Da_Xavier !
Here is the verse

18καγω δε σοι λεγω οτι συ ει πετρος και επι ταυτη τη πετρα οικοδομησω μου την εκκλησιαν και πυλαι αδου ου κατισχυσουσιν αυτης

“Egò”, as your friend put it, means “I”, nominative case.

You have “mou”, which is a genitive: “of me”.
This is normal usage to mean “my”.

In the “Our Father”, as written in Matthew, you find:

Patèr emòn, …, ònoma sou, … which is “Our Father”, “Your name” (Litt. “Father of us” “Name of You” )

In other words, you can tell your friend and your uncle that:

“I will build of Me the Church” = “I will build my Church”=οικοδομησω μου την εκκλησιαν.

That is the sentence.

As for the two words they have highlighted, writing “egò” instead of “mou”, as they are would just mean: "I (Just me) will build ".

I hope this can help.

 

[Dunia]

Again, way too much to respond to…

Your statements are filled with bits like this – this is all rhetoric, not supported logical reasoning. You say Jesus intended his church to be visibly united…but how do you support that?

Well, for one, Paul was an Apostle of Christ, called by spectacular means and taught by divine revelation. He seemed to think that the Church should be visibly united:

1 Timothy 3:15 "if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

If Protestantism were true, there would be absolutely no pillar and foundation of truth, only 38,000 conflicting denominations and counting.

1 Corinthians 1:10: “I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.”

What is Paul arguing against in this passage (and the surrounding passages) if not leaders who create schisms and divisions, resulting in 38,000 conflicting denominations?

1 Corinthians 14:33: “For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.”

Granted, Paul is speaking specifically about the use of the Spiritual Gifts here, but doesn’t it stand to reason that this would be true of all things? What are 38,000 conflicting denominations (or two for that matter) if not disorder, which God is not the author of?

Matthew 5:14-15: “You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house.”

Does it stand to reason that Christ wanted His followers to be a beacon to the world, but confused and disunited?

Galatians 1:6-9: “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!”

What is this if not a powerful call to unity in a singular Truth? Did God command that women shall not be ordained, or didn’t He? If He did, then that is a part of the gospel, but Protestantism holds this as a negotiable. Did God institute the Eucharist as His body and blood that we must eat for Salvation, or didn’t He? If He did, then tht is part of the Gospel, but Protestantism holds that negotiable. Is drinking alcohol impure? etc, etc. All negotiable amongst Protestants.

Or did God promise us a means by which we could stand with certainty upon His Truth?

You say obviously the power to loose and bind must be carried “to the end of the age”, but how do you support that? You make far too many assertions without support for me to even begin to form common ground with you on this particular issue.

At this point, it seems like mere argumentativeness. Perhaps I am wrong.

Interestingly, yes – if we assume the binding and loosing bit to be an authoritative decision-making capacity. However, as it makes no sense to leave fallible man in charge of what is bound or loosed in heaven, I conclude that binding and loosing is not so much of an authoritative thing.

Then what is it? Peter was a fallible man. He denied Christ. He was rebuked by Christ for not having in mind the things of God. Even after Pentecost, he initially was opposed to taking the Gospel to the Gentiles, which he was corrected on. Yet Christ still gave him that authority, which is a point that I believe to be beyond contestation. It makes no sense, does it? Yet somehow, God tends to know what He is doing, even when it makes no sense to us.

 

[centurion210]

This is really STUPID. Why does anyone want to waste their time responding to a guy like PC. He obviously has no interest in learning the truth.

His questions are answered thoughtfully and with careful and thorough scholarship. His answers (I’m being charitable to say that he actually answers anything) are absolutely without substance or thought of any kind.

He is probably a disciple of James White or John MacArthur. Try reading MacArthur’s RANTS on the Pope and you’ll see what I mean. He is absolutely incoherent and actually changes Scripture when he gets wound up.

I guess however it does show how shallow and weak the Protestant argument really is. It’s easy to see how the Reformation turned into ABC; and it continues.

 

[JRKH]

This is really STUPID. Why does anyone want to waste their time responding to a guy like PC. He obviously has no interest in learning the truth.

His questions are answered thoughtfully and with careful and thorough scholarship. His answers (I’m being charitable to say that he actually answers anything) are absolutely without substance or thought of any kind.

He is probably a disciple of James White or John MacArthur. Try reading MacArthur’s RANTS on the Pope and you’ll see what I mean. He is absolutely incoherent and actually changes Scripture when he gets wound up.

I guess however it does show how shallow and weak the Protestant argument really is. It’s easy to see how the Reformation turned into ABC; and it continues.

Centurian,
I can understand your frustration, but I would caution you against posts such as the above. They are worse than counterproductive. As time goes on and you become involved in more conversations, you’ll see better what I mean.
There has been a great deal of good information posted on this thread. Much of it because of PC Master’s presence. If he had not been so adament we may not have had the benefit of much that Claudius and Rony have published.

Peace
James

 

[sambos671]

Quote from Alistair Stewart-Sykes seems to indicate a history a bit different about the Apostolic See what do you guys say?

the growth of a monepiscopate at Rome has recently been undertaken by Brent and Lampe, both chart a path within Roman Christianity which originates with a series ofdiverse Christian Communities and ends with the unification of the Roman church under a single bishop…That the origin of Christianity at Rome lay in a series of entirely independent communities is clear from the various greetings to different households to be foundin Paul’s letter to the Roman churches. A similar picture of diversity is to be found in frequent references which both Hermas and Clement make to leaders of the church, and the constant appeals Hermas makes that there should be unity among these leaders.

 

[MIZER]

Quote:
Originally Posted by centurion210
This is really STUPID. Why does anyone want to waste their time responding to a guy like PC. He obviously has no interest in learning the truth.

His questions are answered thoughtfully and with careful and thorough scholarship. His answers (I’m being charitable to say that he actually answers anything) are absolutely without substance or thought of any kind.

He is probably a disciple of James White or John MacArthur. Try reading MacArthur’s RANTS on the Pope and you’ll see what I mean. He is absolutely incoherent and actually changes Scripture when he gets wound up.

I guess however it does show how shallow and weak the Protestant argument really is. It’s easy to see how the Reformation turned into ABC; and it continues.

Centurian,
I can understand your frustration, but I would caution you against posts such as the above. They are worse than counterproductive. As time goes on and you become involved in more conversations, you’ll see better what I mean.
There has been a great deal of good information posted on this thread. Much of it because of PC Master’s presence. If he had not been so adament we may not have had the benefit of much that Claudius and Rony have published.

Hi James,

I appreciate your caution here but I must confess I’m beginning to feel the same way. PC Master seems to be so insincere about learning the truth as he refuses to accept any of it. If you look back at the posts, almost every single time he says “yes”, “I agree” or “true,” he follows with “but…” It may be Atemi who does this more than PC. At any rate, I can’t help but get the idea he (PC) is only here to waste time and not really find truth.

PC Master,

I will appologize in advance if this is in fact, a mis-characterization of your intention. It is merely my own observation and gut feeling. So much has been written on this thread in addition to the incredible scholarship offered by Claudius and Rony (and I do appreciate the education they have offered to me as a Catholic on this board) but it doesn’t seem to have convinced you of anything at all. How do you explain that?

Do you think what we are telling you is some sort of very well thought out lie? Do you think Claudius and Rony are simple minded and in error in the conclusions they’ve drawn from their own experience and education in the ancient languages and in the faith in general? Where exactly do you stand on the issue of this thread? Do you believe Peter is the Rock of Matt 16:18, and if so, why aren’t you Catholic? If you don’t believe Peter is the Rock but you have non-Catholic friends and/or aquaintances who do, could you ask them and then tell us, why they are not Catholic?

 

[JRKH]

Hi James,

I appreciate your caution here but I must confess I’m beginning to feel the same way. PC Master seems to be so insincere about learning the truth as he refuses to accept any of it. If you look back at the posts, almost every single time he says “yes”, “I agree” or “true,” he follows with “but…” It may be Atemi who does this more than PC. At any rate, I can’t help but get the idea he (PC) is only here to waste time and not really find truth.

My concern has mainly to do withCenturian’s “Stupid” comment. We will minister better to others if we stay away from such comments.

Peace
James

 

[PC_Master]

sambos> What book did you get this from? How do they support their argument?

PC Master,

I will appologize in advance if this is in fact, a mis-characterization of your intention. It is merely my own observation and gut feeling.

It is indeed a mis-characterization. Apology accepted.

So much has been written on this thread in addition to the incredible scholarship offered by Claudius and Rony (and I do appreciate the education they have offered to me as a Catholic on this board) but it doesn’t seem to have convinced you of anything at all. How do you explain that?

I wouldn’t say it hasn’t convinced me of anything – I just still can’t fit together the entire Roman Catholic position on the papacy as valid. Given that, I must conclude that there’s something wrong with that position, which may lie in something about Matthew 16 that we’re missing or mis-interpreting.

For instance, we still haven’t seen much, if anything, on the matter of Kepha being translated as Petros instead of being translitterated as is common with names. We haven’t seen much about the supposed Aramaic name Petros.

Do you think what we are telling you is some sort of very well thought out lie?

Do I think you’re intentionally lying? Of course not. However, false things (especially in terms of religious beliefs) are frequently very well developed – otherwise they wouldn’t be believed.

In other words – the fact that I don’t believe you’re lying doesn’t mean that I believe that what you’re saying is correct.

Do you think Claudius and Rony are simple minded and in error in the conclusions they’ve drawn from their own experience and education in the ancient languages and in the faith in general?

No, but I do think their religious backgrounds may shape their method of thinking improperly, just as mine has at times.

Where exactly do you stand on the issue of this thread? Do you believe Peter is the Rock of Matt 16:18, and if so, why aren’t you Catholic?

I am coming to the belief that petros and petra, grammatically, were possibly referring to the same thing. That said, I don’t think it’s fair to say this is the person of Simon, as such. The overall context of the passage just doesn’t lend itself to this. Interestingly, this may put me squarely in the topic of this thread.

So here’s the answer, as given before –

1. Accepting Peter as the rock need not imply the papacy.
2. Implication of the papacy need not imply apostolic succession.
3. In Matthew 16:18, that petros and petra are referring to the same thing (a point I’m still not entirely sold on) need not necessarily be referring to the person of Simon Peter, but can rather be referring to the faith he had.

And before you say it – this is not merely grasping at straws. These are reasonable things not addressed by the Roman Catholic position.

Origen’s argument weighs in heavily here.

And yes, I believe you can separate the person of Peter from the faith he exhibited. Likewise, the role he supposedly played can be separated from the person of Peter.

My concern has mainly to do withCenturian’s “Stupid” comment. We will minister better to others if we stay away from such comments.

Peace
James

Absolutely – this is true of both sides.