Matthew 16:18 controversy

[De_Maria]

I can agree to the fact that God is one

Ok, good.

and Christ is one with God.

Great!

As far as Peter being the foundation of the Church,

Actually, Scripture says that Jesus built the Church on the Rock of Peter.

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

this is simply false teaching, found nowhere in the apostle’s doctrine, but to the contrary: Paul said Jesus was the foundation, Eph. 2:20. the very chief cornerstone.

And He is. But these are two different metaphors.

St. Paul was conveying that Jesus is the one upon whom the entire Church relies.

But Jesus, also used a metaphor. He named Simon, the Rock, because Simon would represent God to His Church. Heretofore, the only Person in Scripture who was named Rock, was God, Himself.

2 Samuel 22:32 For who is God, save the Lord? and who is a rock, save our God?

So, let’s go through it:

Matt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter,

Jesus, speaking to Simon, names him “Rock”. That is the meaning of the name “Peter”. Heretofore, the only Rock in Scripture has been God. Therefore, Jesus has given Simon, His own name. This is significant. It means that Simon is now God’s representative upon earth. The rest follows logically.

and upon this rock I will build my church;

Since Peter is Christ’s representative, it is logical that Jesus would organize His Church around St. Peter. This is why we can say that the Church is the Body of Christ. It is Christ’s CORPORATION. St. Peter is the Chief Officer. The Apostles the Board of Directors.

and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Again, because Peter is Christ’s representative, it is logical that the Church will prevail against the gates of hell. The Catholic Church which Jesus established has kept Satan in a state of siege. From the moment that any man is baptized, they are snatched out of Satan’s hands and joined to the Church:

Acts 2:38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.….47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Everything which Peter binds upon earth is bound in heaven. Everything he looses upon earth is loosed in heaven. That is not only infallibility. That is also saving power. God has given the office of Peter awesome power. And all that we can do is sit back and gasp:

Matthew 9:8 But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.

I hope that helps.

 

[De_Maria]

Tertullian got it wrong too. He was not inspired by the holy Spirit and his conclusions were wrong on this matter.

Come on, really, you respond to Biblical explanations by merely waving your hand?

 

[sainteriksrose]

And as we read in Scripture, the Holy Spirit distributes His different blessings as He sees fit within those “baptized into one body”. (1 Corinthians 12)

“There are different kinds of spiritual gifts but the same Spirit;
there are different forms of service but the same Lord; there are different workings but the same God who produces all of them in everyone.” (NAB)

 

[De_Maria]

But you don’t exactly connect the dots in Matt. 16. In other words, Peter received keys to the kingdom of God. Okay… what do the keys represent?

God’s authority.

and on what scripture bases do they represent that?

Isaiah 22:22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

… what are you looking at to draw the conclusions that these keys are some kind of spiritual authority in a position called a papacy where Peter alone will bind and loose.

1. The Word of God in Sacred Tradition.
2. The Word of God in Scripture.
3. The explanations of the Magisterium from Apostolic times to the present.

Oh. yeah… bind and loose what? and to what degree? and on what scriptural bases?

Already answered. Look above.

From what I’ve read about this: is that Peter binds an looses souls into, or away from heaven. He’s the gatekeeper so to speak. Is that right? Wonderful! But please connect all of these theological dots with what you actually find in Matthew 16:18.

See above. I hope it helps.

I don’t see all that you SAY in this one verse of scripture. Someone has imposed a lot of “idea” into the simple but yet obscure metaphor we are calling KEYS.

In the end, what matters is the Truth which Jesus Christ passed down through His Church. What you see doesn’t matter. Perhaps you don’t see, because your not one of the elect. Or maybe your election will manifest itself later on.

Then there is the lack of repetition. These KEYS are not brought up by anyone anywhere in the entire bible. Please don’t use the King David Key. I will historically prove you wrong on that.

Let’s see what you’ve got.

There is too much wrong with this view to sign off on it as if it is God’s holy word. It is not.

Yeah, it is.

Then comes the “establishment” of doctrine issue. Upon the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be ESTABLISHED. Who else (from scripture as a witness ) is SAYING what the RCC is saying about this new office?

Well, let’s see. All the Apostles call Simon, Peter. And some even call him, Cephas. Then, in the list of Apostles, he is always named first. When St. Paul wants to make sure he is still running straight, he goes to see St. Peter. And when Ananias lies to St. Peter, the Holy Spirit takes his life. Same happened to his wife. Jesus says that St. Peter will be sifted by Satan. But that he will return and help his brethren. St. Peter is the one whom Jesus selects to Shepherd His Flock (i.e. feed my sheep). There are a lot of confirmations in Scripture. For those who are not blind to them.

These are huge hurdles of fragmented theology unsupported by Matt. 16 or any other passage. Please answer the specific questions from this post with specific answers.

Only if you’re determined to ignore and reject them. Seek God first. Let Him lead you to the Catholic Church. Don’t be like the Israelites who wanted a human king.

 

[HarryStotle]

But my original point stands. To build such a large systematic theology and religious system such as the Roman Catholic Church on one obscure metaphor found in scripture, knowing how Jesus spoke metaphorically on a regular basis, is foolish in my humble opinion. Scripture always validates scripture. This is where many bible witnesses come together to agree on an set of facts. Their agreement is the glue that proves they have arrived at an established TRUTH.

Okay, let’s start from the beginning.

God promises to David that his house and kingdom would last forever. (Not a metaphor!)

Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me; your throne shall be established forever. (2 Sam 7:16)

The chief steward of the house had complete authority over the House of David in the absence of the king.

Thus says the Lord God of hosts: Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is master of the household, and say to him: What right do you have here? …I will thrust you from your office, and you will be pulled down from your post.

On that day I will call my servant Eliakim son of Hilkiah, and will clothe him with your robe and bind your sash on him. I will commit your authority to his hand, and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and no one shall shut; he shall shut, and no one shall open. I will fasten him like a peg in a secure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his ancestral house. (Is 22:15-23)

The everlasting house and kingdom promised to David come up subsequently in the OT as a reminder of the promise, for example in Psalm 89.

The key reference before the coming of Jesus is in Daniel 2.

And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall this kingdom be left to another people. It shall crush all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever;

The prophecy in Daniel 2 is clearly the one to which Jesus refers throughout the Gospels and specifically in Matthew 1-10 as the coming of the Kingdom of God or, alternatively, the Kingdom of Heaven, when he declares the “kingdom is upon you.” AND is a direct reference back to God’s promise to David.

It is also the same kingdom Jesus refers to in Matthew 16:18.

Continued…

 

[HarryStotle]

Notice in the prophesy from Daniel 2:

As you looked on, a stone was cut out, not by human hands, and it struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and broke them in pieces. Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold, were all broken in pieces and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, so that not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that struck the statue became a great mountain and filled the whole earth. …
And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall this kingdom be left to another people. It shall crush all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever; just as you saw that a stone was cut from the mountain not by hands, and that it crushed the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. The great God has informed the king what shall be hereafter. The dream is certain, and its interpretation trustworthy.”(Dan 2:34-45)

It is not a coincidence that Jesus refers to Peter as the “rock” or “stone” “cut from the mountain” to whom, just like to Eliakim son of Hilkiah, was given the keys to “the kingdom that shall never be destroyed” because it was not formed by human hands. Notice that it is by the strength of the stone “not formed by human hands” that the earthly kingdoms were overthrown and that stone became a “great mountain and filled the whole earth.”

Compare Jesus words concerning the growth of the kingdom of heaven from a mustard seed, for example. Jesus was referring to the prophecy in Daniel.

Also, by referring to Peter as the rock that would strengthen the others, Jesus is directly connecting the strength and fortitude of Peter to the stone in Daniel.

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matt 16:18-19)

Furthermore, he is giving to Peter the keys to the everlasting kingdom (the Church which supplanted the other kingdoms on earth) just as the keys to David’s kingdom were given to Eliakim using virtually the same words:

I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and no one shall shut; he shall shut, and no one shall open. (Is 22)
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matt 16:18-19)

In Christ’s absence (he ascended to Heaven) until his return, Peter was given charge of the everlasting house of David because his position in that house (the Kingdom) is essentially the same as the chief steward Eliakim’s. Christ has not returned and Peter has passed the keys forward as part of his authority, still in the absence of the King, to a successor because he was given the power to do so: “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” The power of the chief steward was specifically given by Jesus to Peter.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza.

This is not hard to understand. RC’s believe that the process of choosing and collecting the books is an infallible process. Infallible people by an infallible process collected infallible books, it is believed.

I don’t think your claims for infallibility make a lot of sense, given that what was and was not “scripture” wasn’t declared as “beyond debate” until the Council of Florence. As such, your understanding of infallibility and the role it plays in Roman Catholicism certainly requires more study.

I’m familiar with the common protestant view that “the canon simply always was”, but there isn’t any historical evidence for that. Literally none. So little, in fact, that protestants have their own canon, Catholics have their canon, the Orthodox have their canon, the Ethiopians have their canon, and I’m sure there are scores of smaller (but also ancient) sects of Christianity with theirs as well.
Mormons provide yet another, but more recent, example of the same issue among “Christians” (I used the term very loosely for Mormons).

Protestants, on the other hand, do NOT believe the choosing or the collecting of the books was infallible, but we do believe the outcome we have today is infallible by way of the Holy Spirit.

I totally get that. But you also realize that literally every other group with every other canon claims something akin to the same thing, right? We ALL claim that the Spirit was a part of how we got our bible.

As such, you need a unique argument for your canon if you’re going to claim that it is uniquely correct; as required as a rule of logic.

So since everyone claims the Spirit, what else ya got? Seriously.

But going back to the argument about Peter, on your end, this is still un-established.

No, it’s rather well established. You just find the evidence unconvincing, which I can do literally nothing about. You can’t MAKE a man admit the sky’s blue…

where are your witnesses?.. who will testify to Peter’s new and improved role?.. Not even Peter!

Why would he write a treatise on something not being challenged? He was given the role, in scripture, by Christ himself. “Thou art Simon “The Rock” and on this rock I will build my Church”. “Peter, shepherd my sheep”. And so on…
Paul provided an excellent witness for it when he sought confirmation from Peter. If the Church was “invisible”, this would not have been required. But of course, the Church wasn’t invisible; it was quite visible. How else could the Church banish false prophets? Paul didn’t want to be considered a false prophet, so he was confirmed by Peter himself. Bona fide.
The evangelical model doesn’t work as a preserver of truth, as fractious denominationalism has undoubtedly proven. In this way, the Catholic model is unambiguously better.

 

[Vonsalza]

even Jesus validated this rule with a sharp rebuke of those who fell into the trap of trusting tradition over scripture.

Eek! Then this includes Paul himself! “so then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.”

Whatever red-letter verse you’re referring to, you’re probably misinterpreting it. That or Paul was wrong…

Please… please… please, … find one person in holy scripture who walked and talked with Peter and recognized this huge modification of doctrine called the papacy… Just one person in Paul’s circle…

First, why “one person in Paul’s circle”? Was Paul’s circle “more Christian” than, say, Mark’s circle in Alexandria; the writings of whom weren’t well-preserved? What an odd and truly arbitrary standard you’ve selected here… Really.

And there is no modification. Christ verbally established Petrine headship directly. We reasonably see the councils in Acts and Paul affirming it by their actions.

Enthroning a man as a king was a normal and accepted idea for citizens of the Roman Empire of the 1st. Century, but it was never the ways of God.

To the contrary, God’s religion always had a head. In the Age of the Patriarchs, it was the oldest living prime heir of Adam. After Melchizedek passed this to the priesthood, there was always a High Priest. When Christ passed this to the Church, there was always a primus (term chosen in deference to our Orthodox brothers).

Vonsalza, don’t be so gullible to these kind of arguments. Its weak and unconvincing to any honest and un-bias student of scripture.

So far, I’ve seen little from you BESIDES heavy religious bias.
The list of canon, didn’t fall out the sky. It was debated for centuries-bordering-millennia. And until the real rise of evangelicalism in the 19th and 20th centuries, the Church was exclusively considered visible. How else could it function?

The “eyes closed” faith Evangelicalism requires is exactly why I left it. How do you know that your evangelical congregation has it “more right” than the other one right across the street? You don’t. And the only way evangelicalism “solves” the problem is by ignoring it. To a child of Truth, this is not acceptable.

 

[steve-b]

Steve-b. I have looked at the verse closer and realize I am wrong. I own you an apology. Please forgive me. You are right, the root of the word is in the plural. I didn’t see it at first glance.

No problem. Glad you saw that.

tgGodsway:

So what you are saying is, because Peter was given an assignment to strengthen his brothers, this makes him of higher authority than them? Thus it becomes evidence that he was to become the pope? Is that what you mean?

The argument was over who is the greatest among THEM.… among the apostles. Luke 22:24-32 RSVCE - The Dispute about Greatness - A dispute - Bible Gateway
Jesus validated one of THEM is the greatest. It’s the only apostle Jesus mentions by name, Simon Peter and gives Peter again, instructions to lead the apostles, ergo the Church

Satan plants discord. He sifts. He separates and divides what Jesus establishes. And he never stops doing that. Witness E Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. All arguing and keep arguing over what Jesus already established in Peter and those in union with Peter…right? Refusing to accept that Jesus established the Catholic Church, the papacy in Peter, and everyone is to be in complete union with Peter and his successors.

. Jesus already changed Simon’s name to [Rock, Cephas, ] John 1:42 RSVCE - He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked - Bible Gateway And Cephas = http://bibleapps.com/study/john/1-42.htm means Rock, the Rock Jesus builds His Church on.

. Jesus already promised the keys to Rock, Peter.

. Jesus already promised to build His Church on Peter and those in union with him.

. Jesus wants not just unity but perfect unity to Peter and those in union with him, but also the same perfect unity in those who come to faith through their teaching John 17:20-23 RSVCE - “I do not pray for these only, but - Bible Gateway

tgGodsway:

Firstly, I do not know of a “sifting” that took place by the other disciples to the degree that Peter experienced. But let’s just say they all denied Christ to that degree, We know they all forsook Him at the cross but not sure they all “denied” him at the cross. But for argument’s sake, lets just say they all denied him in a verbal exchange.

The fact all of them except John, weren’t there, showed they abandoned Him also.

After the resurrection, Jesus gave Peter the chance to redeem his denial, which BTW, Peter’s denial, was no surprise. Jesus told Peter in advance that Peter would deny Jesus 3 times. Did that change Jesus plans for Peter? No John 21:15-18 RSVCE - Jesus and Peter - When they had - Bible Gateway

Who is left out of feed, tend, rule my sheep? No one.

tgGodsway:

this doesn’t connect the theological dots you insist that it connects. It doesn’t go far enough. Only by reading into the text your personal bias can you extract such a conclusion.
the New Testament record doesn’t even yield the residue of such conclusions about Peter.

The NT evidence is there AND 2000 years of Catholic Church history is there.

 

[tgGodsway]

Steve-b you responded by saying…

Jesus validated one of THEM is the greatest. It’s the only apostle Jesus mentions by name, Simon Peter and gives Peter again, instructions to lead the apostles, ergo the Church

I’m not sure how you read scripture, but I’m having a really hard time extracting what you extract. You said Jesus validated one of them as the greatest. It’s the only apostle mentioned by name.
Would you please give me the exact words in the context where Jesus validates Peter, because verse 31 is a change of thought. The fact that Jesus said Simon Simon shouldn’t be construed to mean, Simon is the greatest. The fact that he was called to strengthen his brothers who all would forsake the Lord at the cross, still doesn’t mean he is the greatest. Don’t get me wrong, I like Peter. And certainly he was a great apostle. But that is not the point.

When you say Peter is the greatest, … greatest in what way? and what words are you looking at in the context that says that? Again, this becomes a bias read into the passage rather than excepting what is actually there.

 

[tgGodsway]

Sorry you have not arrived at a truth by lifting two verses out of Matthew. The SUM of the word is truth. PS. 119:160

 

[tgGodsway]

Sorry saunteriksrose, I was raised RC but today I can barely find a Protestant church.

 

[steve-b]

Steve-b you responded by saying…

steve-b:

Jesus validated one of THEM is the greatest. It’s the only apostle Jesus mentions by name, Simon Peter and gives Peter again, instructions to lead the apostles, ergo the Church

I’m not sure how you read scripture, but I’m having a really hard time extracting what you extract. You said Jesus validated one of them as the greatest. It’s the only apostle mentioned by name.
Would you please give me the exact words in the context where Jesus validates Peter,

What part of the following opening statement, is not clear?

Lk 22:

24 “A dispute also arose among them, which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. 25 And he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. 26 But not so with you; rather let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves.”

Jesus is validating one of THEM is the greatest AND the leader.

Re: the Greek, in those passages from Luke
the one who is the “leader” in the Greek the word also means rules ἡγούμενος http://bibleapps.com/greek/2233.htm , open the link and see the explanation. Who is Jesus talking about? It’s Peter. The only apostle Jesus names and addresses. Part of the understanding of that word used is, hence Peter deserves cooperation by those who are led by Peter and obviously it’s the one Jesus has already selected to be the ruler.

for Peter then to do the job Jesus commanded of him, it goes without saying, all must be willing to be led by Peter. In extension, those who do this are cooperating with the will of Jesus.

tgGodsway:

When you say Peter is the greatest, … greatest in what way?

Jesus is saying Peter is the greatest, and the one who will rule… NOT ME. I’m merely quoting Jesus.

tgGodsway:

and what words are you looking at in the context that says that? Again, this becomes a bias read into the passage rather than excepting what is actually there.

C’mon tg, are you really lecturing me on bias?

one of THEM, Peter, the only one Jesus mentions in this discussion, is the leader. From the Greek in that passage, ἡγούμενος , http://bibleapps.com/greek/2233.htm

1. to lead, i. e.
   a. to go before;
   b. to be a leader; to rule, command; to have authority over: in the N. T. so only in the present participle ἡγούμενος, a prince, of regal power (Ezekiel 43:7 for מֶלֶך; Sir. 17:17), Matthew 2:6; a (royal) governor, viceroy, Acts 7:10; chief

who is also to strengthen στήρισον , http://bibleapps.com/greek/4741.htm the others. Open the links.

BTW one of the titles of the pope is “servant of the servants of God” which takes nothing away from his primacy of authority

 

[Vonsalza]

It being rather odd that the religion of Protestantism - which is only 500 years old…

Well, not quite right.

Most of your 500 year-old sects are gone, fairly close to going or are genuinely rare to encounter active members thereof. Mainlines. Anglicans. Luddite groups like the Amish, and so on…

Most “protestants” are evangelical. And while many will try to pick some date in 16th or 17th century England or Europe in an attempt to make them look older (and, thus more legitimate) than they really are, the great GREAT majority of them don’t have discernible continuity before a time range between the mid-19th century and the present.

This, despite claiming to be the Church founded by Christ almost 2000 years ago…

 

[De_Maria]

Sorry you have not arrived at a truth by lifting two verses out of Matthew. The SUM of the word is truth. PS. 119:160

Your simple denials are not arguments. The truth is true whether you accept it or not.

 

[tgGodsway]

NO, De_Maria. you are ignoring God’s holy word. Psalms 119:160 is a real divine principle of interpretation. Truth has never been obtained by lifting a verse out of it’s context.

What will you do with this principle De_Maria? Ignore it, or consider what God is saying to you through his word?

 

[tgGodsway]

Lk 22:

24 “A dispute also arose among them, which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. 25 And he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. 26 But not so with you; rather let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves.”

Jesus is validating one of THEM is the greatest AND the leader.

The dispute came from the disciples as to who was the greatest. Jesus simply showed them what greatness is suppose to look like in the kingdom of God.

The greatest among you is the least or the youngest. The word “you” there (v26) is in a plural form, implying anyone who wants to be great. He said, "WHOEVER is greatest among you MUST BECOME like the least. The word whoever implies ANYONE. It does not signify Peter specifically.
Secondly, Christ says that He would bestow a kingdom where “you” (same Greek word in the plural) will eat and drink at His table. Again there is no singling out of just Peter. These statements were for everyone to accept.

Back up to verse 24, Those of the gentiles who LORD it over them are not great at all. why? Because greatness is not displayed in terms of domination or forced rule. Just like the RCC cannot force non-Roman Catholic Christians to worship their way. This is the way of the gentiles.

But there is no mention of Peter specifically in the immediate context of his thought. Peter’s name comes up only in verse 31 where there is a transition of thought. But in this new context, Matthew does not bring up at all who is the greatest. The subject matter has been changed. Peter is going to be sifted by Satan. Strengthen your brothers when you repent.

 

[MichaelP3]

The truth is true whether you accept it or not.

Just like you said it. That is very very true! Although you do realise this can be said to anyone from anyone?

 

[Elf01]

Peter is going to be sifted by Satan. Strengthen your brothers when you repent.

I tend to agree with you that the subject matter has been changed here, but why does Jesus specifically pray for Peter, and why is Peter the one asked to strengthen the others?

 

[steve-b]

The dispute came from the disciples as to who was the greatest. Jesus simply showed them what greatness is suppose to look like in the kingdom of God.

The greatest among you is the least or the youngest. The word “you” there (v26) is in a plural form, implying anyone who wants to be great.

Did Peter want to be great? Nope. Did he lobby anyone for the top job? Nope. Did he ask for the keys, or to have his name changed? Nope.

Did anybody among them do something like that? Yep. The mother of James and John, who wanted asked Jesus for her 2 sons to sit at the right and left hand of Jesus, positions of authority.

But back to the point at hand.

NONE of that applied to Peter. Peter did none of that nor did anyone do it for him. As far as Peter was concerned, what Jesus did for him was a total surprise to Peter

tgGodsway:

He said, "WHOEVER is greatest among you MUST BECOME like the least. The word whoever implies ANYONE. It does not signify Peter specifically.

Don’t be nieve. Why does Jesus name Peter and no one else? Jesus by naming Peter, settled their argument.
Godsway:

Secondly, Christ says that He would bestow a kingdom where “you” (same Greek word in the plural) will eat and drink at His table. Again there is no singling out of just Peter. These statements were for everyone to accept.

Jesus makes the point…ONE of them is the greatest. NOT many of them not everyone, but ONE of them. If they are ALL equal, which they aren’t by definition, why does Jesus single Peter out, and say He will pray especially for Peter to strengthen the others after they have been sifted by Satan

Imagine having just been arguing over who is greatest, and you hear Jesus say THAT to Peter bypassing all the others? Might they be thinking, Hey Jesus what are WE chopped Liver? After all, this is Satan we’re talking about!

I realize this doesn’t set well for Protestants and other non Catholics…