Debate:Does the Catholic Church have the biblical authority of Christ Himself to preach and to teach the truth forever?

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shobson20 (Talk | contribs) at 18:35, August 22, 2020. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search
This is a non-denominational exchange of ideas intended to bring about a greater understanding of the Bible.
All views are welcome.

TEXTS and QUESTIONS of the Debate are posted here.
READER RESPONSE ANSWERS AND COMMENTS are most welcome here, and should not be made on the Talk Page.

Contents

Texts

Jesus: "And I tell you, you are Peter (Petros = rock/stone), and on this rock I will build my CHURCH, and the powers of death / the gates of hades shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Matthew 16:18-19
Jesus: And if any one will not receive you (plural) or listen to your (plural) words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly, I say to you (plural), it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrhah than for that town. Matthew 10_14-15
Jesus: (said to his Jewish disciples) "if he refuses to listen even to the CHURCH, let him be to you (plural) as a Gentile and a tax collector (to the Jews a godless pagan and a traitor to the people of God). Truly I say to you (plural), whatever you (plural) bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you (plural) loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Matthew 18:17b-18
Jesus: "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you (plural); and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age ("aeonos" = millions of years)." Matthew 28:19b-20
Jesus: "And I will pray the Father, and he will give you (plural) another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you (plural) know him, for he dwells with you (plural), and will be in you (plural)." John 14:16-17.
Jesus: "If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned." John 15:6. "I have yet many things to say to you (plural), but you (plural) cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you (plural) into all the truth" John 16:12-13a
"Jesus said to them again, 'Peace be with you (plural). As the Father has sent me, even so I send you (plural).' And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you (plural) forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you (plural) retain the sins of any, they are retained." John 20:21-23
"But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, 'Unless you are circumcized according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved' (their sola scriptura interpretation). And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question. So being sent on their way by the CHURCH...When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the CHURCH and the apostles and elders." Acts 15:1-2,4a. "Then it seemed good to the apostles and elders, with the whole CHURCH to choose men from among them and send them...'it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us' ...and having gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter. And when they read it, they rejoiced at the exhortation." Acts 15:22,28,30b-31 (this has been called the Council of Jerusalem—the New Testament had not been written)
Paul: "Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you guardians, to feed the CHURCH of the Lord which he obtained with his own blood." Acts 20:28
Paul: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment." Romans 13:1-2
Paul: "I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given to me by God to be a minister / official ambassador of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit." Romans 15:15-16
Paul: "For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slave or free" 1 Corinthians 12:12-13. "Now you (plural) are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the CHURCH first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators..." 1 Corinthians 12:27-28
Paul: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you." 1 Corinthians 11:2
Paul: "So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God." 2 Corinthians 5:20
Paul: "As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to to that which you received, let him be accursed." Galatians 1:9
Paul: For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." Ephesians 2:10
Paul: "So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy TEMPLE in the Lord; in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit." Ephesians 2:19-21
Paul: "to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; that through the CHURCH the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known..." Ephesians 3:9-10
Paul: "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the CHURCH; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell" Colossians 1:18-19 "holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God." Colossians 2:19
Paul: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." 2 Thessalonians 2:15. "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the traditions that you received from us." 2 Thessalonians 3:6
Paul: "know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the CHURCH of the living God, the pillar and bulwark / foundation / ground of the truth." 1 Timothy 3:15
Paul: "and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." 2 Timothy 2:2
Paul: "exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you." Titus 2:15 (written to the bishop of Crete). "avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over the law / Old Testament, for they are unprofitable and futile. As for a man who is factious / an heretick, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful: he is self-condemned." Titus 3:9-11
Hebrews: "A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses (compare Matthew 18:16). How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned / made unholy / regarded as common the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?" Hebrews 10:28-29
Hebrews: "We have an altar (singular) from which those who serve the tent / tabernacle have no right to eat." Hebrews 13:10
Hebrews: "Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you." Hebrews 13:17
James: "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." James 2:24
James: "Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders (presbyteroi = "priests") of the CHURCH, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven." James 5:14-15
Peter: "Like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." 1 Peter 2:5.
Peter: "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every HUMAN INSTITUTION, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. For it is God's will that by doing right you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men." 1 Peter 2:13-15
Peter: "be subject to the elders (presbyteroi = "priests"). Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for 'God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.' Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that in due time he may exalt you." 1 Peter 5:5-6
Peter: "His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become PARTAKERS OF THE DIVINE NATURE." 2 Peter 1:3-4 (Eucharist, the promise of eternal life in John 6:53-58)
John: "Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour. They WENT OUT FROM US, but they were not of us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us." 1 John 2:18-19
John: "And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God." 1 John 4:14-15
(the Catholic Church confesses that Jesus is the Son of God in the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed and in the Cathechism of the Catholic Church. John 20:21 testifies that just as the Father sent Jesus as Savior of the world so He sent the apostles as Savior of the world in His Body the Church).
John: "Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son. If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting; for he who greets him shares his wicked work." 2 John 9-11 (this includes the doctrine of Christ that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church that Jesus built on a rock)
John: "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the CHURCHES." Revelation 2:7,11,17,29 3:6,13,22

Questions

Discuss the following questions relating to the scriptures cited above:

  • What is the sola scriptura plain and clear simple meaning of these passages?
  • Are the parenthetical comments inserted in the passages above useful? If not, why not?
  • Is biblical scholarship regarding these passages helpful? Is it irrelevant?
  • Are biblical commentaries on these passages helpful? Are they irrelevant?
  • Do the meanings of these passages in the original language help understanding of their meaning? Is it irrelevant?
  • Can translations be trusted? If not, why? If so, which one is best? Is there more than one to be trusted?
  • Are these passages taken together in context?
  • Are some or any or all of these passages irrelevant to the Debate Question? Which ones?
  • Are any of these Bible passages not relevant to the church? Which? Why?
  • Is the church a governing authority?
  • Does any church have authority?
  • What is the meaning of "the church" in these passages?
  • Explain your personal answer to the Debate Question: "Does the Catholic Church have the biblical authority of Christ Himself to preach and to teach the truth forever?"
  • Does the Catholic Church have any authority at all?
  • Is the Catholic Church a human institution? If it is, how is the obedience commanded by 1 Peter 2:13-15 relevant?
  • If not, what does that mean in reference to Matthew 16:19-20 "I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"? Is it irrelevant? Why?
  • Do church teachings and official documents have any binding authority? Are they to be ignored? Why?
  • Are ecumenical and local church councils and synods relevant? Do they have any authority?
  • Who has authority to interpret scripture? How do we know this? Is sola spiritu reliable? Is it infallible?
  • Is the list of scriptural passages posted here at the top of this page a misuse of scripture? Is the list a demonic or satanic abuse or twisting of scripture? If so, why?
  • What authority do you have? Why should you be believed? Is that relevant to the Debate Question? Why?
  • Differences and contradictions:
    —Do heresies and charges of heresy prove that Jesus did not keep his promises in Matthew 16:19-20; John 14:16 and 16:13?
    —Do Christian divisions and multiple divided denominations opposing each other prove that Jesus did not keep his promises in Matthew 16:19-20; John 14:16 and 16:13?
    —Do the Great Schism of 1054 and the Protestant Reformation prove that Jesus did not keep his promises in Matthew 16:19-20; John 14:16 and 16:13?
    —and Do moral scandals and charges of scandal and hypocrisy and corruption against Christian leadership, against Popes, Patriarchs, Bishops, Priests, Reformers, Pastors, Ministers, and leaders of Christian Sects and Cults, prove that Jesus did not keep his promises in Matthew 16:19-20; John 14:16 and John 16:13?
  • Sinful Behavior: Does sinful behavior against the Christian doctrine and scriptures invalidate the Christian doctrine and scriptures and the promises of Christ? Is behavior identical with doctrine? If so, why? If not, why?
  • Satanic influence and power: Does Satan dominate and rule the Church and all the churches? If so, why? If not, why?

No. The Catholic Church does not have the biblical authority of Jesus Christ

The Second Vatican Council declared, "many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its (the Catholic Church's) visible structure".[1]

User: Conservative

Martin Luther was the father of the Protestant Reformation.

One of the editors of the User: Conservative account is a staunch Protestant.

"Here I stand. I can do no other." - Martin Luther
The Christian church was not built upon Peter

Meaning of: "And I tell you, you are Peter (Petros = rock/stone), and on this rock I will build my CHURCH, and the powers of death / the gates of hades shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." - Matthew 16:18-19

Please see:

The historical evidence for papal primacy is insufficient. The historical evidence is against papal primacy

See:

"The word “Pope” means “Papa,” “Father.” At first it was applied to all Western Bishops. About AD. 500 it began to be restricted to the Bishop of Rome, and soon, in common use, came to mean Universal Bishop. The Roman Catholic list of Popes includes the Bishops of Rome from the 1st century onward. But for 500 years Bishops of Rome were NOT Popes.

The idea that the Bishop of Rome should have Authority over the Whole Church was a slow growth process, bitterly contested at every step, and has never at any time been Universally Recognized, not even prior to the Protestant Reformation.

WBSG Note: Jesus tells us in the Bible to “call no man your father on earth.” We know that He wasn’t speaking about your flesh parent because the fifth commandment says: “Honor thy father and thy mother…” [Ex 20:12]. So what other father could He mean except Pope (The word “Pope” means “Papa,” “Father.”). Also notice the capitalization below in the word Father (this indicates the presence of the definite article in the Greek language):

Matt 23:9 (Jesus speaking) 9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. (KJV)

The Roman Catholic tradition that Peter was the First Pope is Fiction pure and simple. There is no New Testament hint, and no historical evidence whatever, that Peter was at any time Bishop of Rome. Nor did he ever claim for himself such Authority as the Popes have claimed for themselves. It seems that Peter had a divine foreboding that his “Successors” would be mainly concerned with “Lording it over Gods flock, rather than showing themselves Examples to the flock” (I Peter 5:3)....

Beginning of Rome’s Domineering Policy:

  • Anicetus, Bishop of Rome (154-168), tried to influence Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, to change the date of Easter observance; but Polycarp refused to yield... (Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John)...
  • Victor 1 (190-202), threatened to excommunicate the Eastern Churches for celebrating Easter on the 14th of Nisan. Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, replied that he was not afraid of Victors threats, and asserted his independent authority. Iranaeus, of Lyons, though a Western Bishop, and in sympathy with the Western viewpoint on Easter Observance, that is, the week-day rather than the month-day, rebuked Victor for trying to Dictate to Eastern Churches."[3]

The Catholic Church is a corrupt joke. Jesus said you will know them by their fruits

"Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach," 1 Timothy 3:2 Shobson20 (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2020 (EDT)
"So, the Pope is perfect and has to be chosen by perfect men. That’s impossible, obviously. I would say this, that the papacy is the biggest hoax ever foisted on the world. The biggest hoax ever. Popes who were fornicators and bribers and murderers, and some who were good men in a human sense, dot the landscape of this history and make it impossible to see in it the work of God or any apostolic succession." -John MacArthur Shobson20 (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2020 (EDT)

Specifically, Jesus said: "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them." (Matthew 7:15-20)

Religious scholars generally separate Christianity into 3 main branches: Catholicism, Protestantism and Eastern Orthodox.

Reformation writers Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Knox taught that the Catholic Church was the Whore of Babylon mentioned in the Book of Revelation. Identification of the Pope as the Antichrist was written into Protestant creeds such as the Westminster Confession of 1646.

In the last 60 years, the corruptness of the Catholic Church has gone to a whole, new stratospheric level (For example, it has had many pedophile and homosexual priests and there have been many Vatican bank/financial scandals).

There are major problems as far as homosexuality, pedophilia and Vatican bank/financial scandals within the Catholic Church.

"The report released Thursday by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said the 2019 report — which covered July 2018 through June 2019 — counted 4,434 allegations of clergy sex abuse against minors."[4]

  • A global look at the Catholic Church’s sex abuse problem[5], Associated Press, 2019

Homosexual clergy problem within the Catholic Church: The staunch, Catholic Michael Voris indicates there is a major problem with there being many homosexual priests in the Catholic priesthood, Western Catholic hierarchy and in the Vatican: The Vortex — The Homosexual Papacy?.

The Catholic church is a corrupt joke. Its corruptness is long-standing, but in the last 60 years its corruptness has gone to a whole new stratospheric level (Sexual abuse victims report their abuse many years after the fact typically).

There is no pandemic of pedophilia in conservative, Bible-believing, Protestant churches (I am not referring to liberal Protestant churches which I consider heretical because they often reject the authority/inerrancy of the Bible and promote unbiblical practices such as as homosexuality). I have been going to conservative, Bible-believing, Protestant churches for years and I am not aware of any such pandemic either locally (in the various geographic areas I have lived in), nationally or globally. On the other hand, the Catholic diocese in my city has declared bankruptcy due to all the sexual abuse cases lodged against it.

There is also no pandemic of homosexuality in conservative, Protestant churches.

I am not aware of any pandemic of pedophilia in Eastern Orthodox Churches. According to Newsweek: "But the Orthodox Church has not experienced as many scandals as its Roman Catholic counterpart, which has been the frequent target of protests by activist groups advocating for victims of sexual assault. Unlike Catholic priests, Orthodox priests are allowed to be married."[6]

Roman Catholic Church, Homosexuality and pederasty

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the American Roman Catholic bishops and the Vatican had noted a growing problem with clerical sexual abuse in the U.S.[2] In addition, Ireland and other European countries have experienced problems relating to instances of Roman Catholic priests sexually abusing children.[3]

Catholic League president Bill Donohue declared concerning the scandals of priests molesting minors:

“ The latest attempt to silence me comes from GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation), Call to Action and the Interfaith Alliance. The three left-wing organizations have joined hands demanding that the media "ignore Bill Donohue." Their complaint? My telling the truth about the role homosexual priests have played in the abuse scandal.

The data collected by John Jay College of Criminal Justice show that between 1950 and 2002, 81 percent of the victims were male and 75 percent of them were post-pubescent. In other words, three out of every four victims have been abused by homosexuals. By the way, puberty, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics, begins at age 10 for boys.

No problem can be remedied without an accurate diagnosis. And any accurate diagnosis that does not finger the role that homosexuals have played in molesting minors is intellectually dishonest. The cover-up must end. And so must attempts to muzzle my voice. Everything I am saying is what most people already know, but are afraid to say it. It's time for some straight talk.[4]

”

Bill Donahue published in the New York Times: "The Times continues to editorialize about the "pedophilia crisis", when all along it's been a homosexual crisis. Eighty percent of the victims of priestly sexual abuse are male and most of them are post-pubescent. While homosexuality does not cause predatory behavior, and most gay priests are not molesters, most of the molesters have been gay."[5]

Thank God homosexuality isn't prevalent in Bible-believing, conservative, Protestant Christianity!

Good fruit of Protestantism:

See also: Protestant cultural legacies and Christianity and social stability

The atheist and Harvard University historian Niall Ferguson declared: "Through a mixture of hard work and thrift the Protestant societies of the North and West Atlantic achieved the most rapid economic growth in history."[6]

The article The Surprising Discovery About Those Colonialist, Proselytizing Missionaries published in Christianity Today notes:

“ In his fifth year of graduate school, Woodberry created a statistical model that could test the connection between missionary work and the health of nations. He and a few research assistants spent two years coding data and refining their methods. They hoped to compute the lasting effect of missionaries, on average, worldwide...

One morning, in a windowless, dusty computer lab lit by fluorescent bulbs, Woodberry ran the first big test. After he finished prepping the statistical program on his computer, he clicked "Enter" and then leaned forward to read the results.

"I was shocked," says Woodberry. "It was like an atomic bomb. The impact of missions on global democracy was huge. I kept adding variables to the model—factors that people had been studying and writing about for the past 40 years—and they all got wiped out. It was amazing. I knew, then, I was on to something really important."

Woodberry already had historical proof that missionaries had educated women and the poor, promoted widespread printing, led nationalist movements that empowered ordinary citizens, and fueled other key elements of democracy. Now the statistics were backing it up: Missionaries weren't just part of the picture. They were central to it...

Areas where Protestant missionaries had a significant presence in the past are on average more economically developed today, with comparatively better health, lower infant mortality, lower corruption, greater literacy, higher educational attainment (especially for women), and more robust membership in nongovernmental associations.

In short: Want a blossoming democracy today? The solution is simple—if you have a time machine: Send a 19th-century missionary."[7]

”

The atheist and Harvard University historian Niall Ferguson declared: "Through a mixture of hard work and thrift the Protestant societies of the North and West Atlantic achieved the most rapid economic growth in history."[8] See also: Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism

Protestantism vs. Catholicism and political corruption (Widespread political corruption in Catholic countries):

The Eurozone financial crisis was primarily caused by the spendthrift PIGS countries (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Spain).[7]

4 out of the 5 of the PIGS countries are Catholic. None of them were Protestant. Greece is Eastern Orthodox.

In summary, I will repeat the words of the Protestant Martin Luther who launched the Protestant Reformation: "Here I stand. I can do no other."

User:Shobson20

“ So, the Pope is perfect and has to be chosen by perfect men. That’s impossible, obviously. I would say this, that the papacy is the biggest hoax ever foisted on the world. The biggest hoax ever. Popes who were fornicators and bribers and murderers, and some who were good men in a human sense, dot the landscape of this history and make it impossible to see in it the work of God or any apostolic succession. ”

John MacArthur

The Pope (and Catholic authority) has taught a different Gospel

Pope Francis has run against Galatians 1:8 "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!" [8]

The Catholic authority says "faith and works" but the Bible says "Faith and NOT works." [9][10][11] Romans 11:6 says that adding works into the equation nullifies the concept of grace, therefore, they CANNOT mix. Catholic attempts to use other scripture out of context nullifies the clear meaning of these verses. Here are examples: [12] [13] [14] Those who are saved will do good works, but the works are not what saves. Keep this in mind when reading verses about doing works.

Critical thinking vs appeal to authority

So far, the Catholic side of this debate has relied on appeals to authority from people who happen to agree with the Catholic interpretation regarding the Apostle Peter. However, the Protestant side has used critical thinking to actually compare whether the teachings of the Roman Catholic Magesterium has been consistent with the teachings of Scripture. Mike Winger in the video linked above shows conclusively that Pope Francis has not. James G. McCarthy created a simple Pamphlet detailing how Roman Catholic doctrine is in conflict with the word of God in several places: [15] and authored the longer "The Gospel According to Rome: Comparing Catholic Tradition and the Word of God." [16] Richard Bennett, former Catholic Priest of 20 years details the doctrinal problems and bad fruits of the Catholic Church in Catholicism: East of Eden [17]

Catholics leave the Catholic Church when they study scripture for themselves

Historically, most laypeople have been illiterate and did not have direct access to the Bible, so they were dependent on what religious leaders told them. In an era where all of scripture has been translated, anyone can fact-check what their leaders tell them just as the Bereans did in Acts 17:11 "Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." The congregation must be modern-day Bereans and only submit to church leaders whose teaching are in harmony with the scriptures.

User:RobSmith was raised Catholic, but said in his own talk page:

“ "In parochial school I heard the word read everyday at mass for 8 years, and it didn't square up with what we were taught in catechism and religion class. The priests and nuns couldn't resolve the questions where the Roman Church and bible seemed to be in direct conflict. I wasn't alone in this - I have three brothers and numerous friends who also were confused by the contradictions. In those days Catholic law forbade independent reading of the scripture.

We used to joke about the Assumption of Mary, that Church law and church tradition "assumed" Mary was levitated cause it appears nowhere in the Bible. Image the shock years later when you discover that the joke is literally true."

”

Former Catholic priest Richard Bennett left the Catholic Church when he began to seriously study the Bible: [18]

“ While I had learned earlier that God’s Word is absolute, I still went through this agony of trying to maintain the Roman Catholic Church as holding more authority than God’s Word, even in issues where the Church of Rome was saying the exact opposite to what was in the Bible. How could this be? First, it was my own fault. If I had accepted the authority of the Bible as supreme, I would have been convicted by God’s Word to give up my priestly role as mediator, but that was too precious to me. Second, no one ever questioned what I did as a priest. Christians from overseas came to Mass, saw our sacred oils, holy water, medals, statues, vestments, rituals, and never said a word! The marvelous style, symbolism, music, and artistic taste of the Roman Church were all very captivating. Incense not only smells pungent, but to the mind it spells mystery. ”

Former Catholic nun Alicia Simpson likewise: [19]

“ In due time, I went with a bus from our church. For the first time in my life I found myself in a vast evangelical gathering. I had no idea what was going on. There I saw the words, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life”, and I heard for the first time the words, “Ye must be born again.” There was a new way of preaching from the Bible, very different from anything I had ever heard. My interest was truly aroused and questions were arising in my mind. Was there salvation outside the Church of Rome? The preacher said that salvation was obtained through believing in the finished work of Christ at Calvary, not through belonging to any particular church. All my training and indoctrination denied such a possibility. But this preacher kept asking us to repent and come to Christ for the forgiveness of sins. Who was right? ”

What the "church fathers" actually say

Peter Being "the rock" does not necessarily mean the first Pope

From Barnes' Notes on The Bible:


“ Another interpretation is, that the word "rock" refers to Peter himself.

This is the obvious meaning of the passage; and had it not been that the Church of Rome has abused it, and applied it to what was never intended, no other interpretation would have been sought for. "Thou art a rock. Thou hast shown thyself firm, and suitable for the work of laying the foundation of the church. Upon thee will I build it. Thou shalt be highly honored; thou shalt be first in making known the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles." This was accomplished. See Acts 2:14-36, where he first preached to the Jews, and Acts 10, where he preached the gospel to Cornelius and his neighbors, who were Gentiles. Peter had thus the honor of laying the foundation of the church among the Jews and Gentiles; and this is the plain meaning of this passage. See also Galatians 2:9. But Christ did not mean, as the Roman Catholics say he did, to exalt Peter to supreme authority above all the other apostles, or to say that he was the only one upon whom he would rear his church. See Acts 15, where the advice of James, and not that of Peter, was followed. See also Galatians 2:11, where Paul withstood Peter to his face, because he was to be blamed - a thing which could not have happened if Christ (as the Roman Catholics say) meant that Peter was absolute and infallible. More than all, it is not said here, or anywhere else in the Bible, that Peter would have infallible successors who would be the vicegerents of Christ and the head of the church. The whole meaning of the passage is this: "I will make you the honored instrument of making known my gospel first to Jews and Gentiles, and I will make you a firm and distinguished preacher in building my church."

”

So although Albert Barnes believed that Peter was the rock, he did not believe that meant Roman Primacy.

Pulpit Commentary, which also asserts that Peter is the rock, says this:


“ Combining the two expositions, we may say that Christ herein promises that neither the power of death nor the power of the devil shall prevail against it (κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς), shall overpower it, keep it in subjection. The pronoun refers doubtless to Church, not rock, the verb being more applicable to the former than the latter, and the pronoun being nearer in position to ἐκκλησίαν. To see here an assurance of the infallibility of the pope, as Romanists do, is to force the words of Scripture most unwarrantably in order to support a modern figment which has done infinite harm to the cause of Christ. As Erasmus says, "Proinde miror esse, qui locum hunc detorqueant ad Romanum Pontificem." ”

The Latin in the last part translates to: "It is surprising that this is twisted to the Pope."

Furthermore, after Jesus supposedly declares Peter to be a rock that the gates of Hell will not prevail against, in Matthew 16:23: Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns." This is wholly inconsistent with Peter being an infallible "first Pope." The "rock" that will be the foundation of the church is looking pretty weak. And of course, in Matthew 26:69-75, Peter denied Jesus three times, AFTER he was supposedly declared "the rock" and the "first Pope." Peter did eventually turn his life around, but he is far from the "rock" that the Catholic position implies that he is.

"Church Authority" Does Not Mean Authority to go Against Previously Established Scripture

Regardless of how many prooftexts Catholics attempt to hijack in order to assert that their church has authority, they do NOT have the authority to go against God's authority, which they do in many ways as outlined by User:RobSmith. In Daniel 3:12 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego would not submit to Nebuchadnezzar's order to bow to the idol made of gold. Galatians 1:8 says that even church authorities who preach a different Gospel receive God's curse. "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!" Paul is talking about himself and his fellow apostles in this statement.

Former Catholics affirm that Catholic Doctrine is exactly what Protestants think it is

[20] [21] Not to mention, User:RobSmith was also raised Catholic.

Equivocation

Catholics will take a reference to "traditions" in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and interpret it as referring to their traditions. Many of the so-called "proof-texts" require Catholic pre-suppostions. 1 Corinthians 3:13-15, the natural reading is that the "fire" is a metaphor for the testing of our works to determine Heavenly reward (it is the work that is set to the fire, not the person). This does not conflict with Jesus paying all the penalty for sins, but the Catholic reading their doctrine of Purgatory into it does. It also does not say that we are burned and tortured until the sin is purged. [22] Answer to another common canard. It addresses not only the language of the verse, but the concept of successors and what power they had. Again, Protestant interpretation does not conflict with only God forgiving sins, but Catholic does.

The "Gates of Hell"

Jesus gave his declaration to Peter at Caesarea Philippi which was known for being a center for Pan worship, and there was a grotto literally called the "Gates of Hades" ("Hades" in the Greek Bible is frequently translated as "Hell") giving Jesus' words a potentially geographic context-sensitive interpretation. [9] Regardless, the verse cannot be referring to Papal infallibility because of this [23] clearly going against not only Christian doctrine, but Catholic doctrine as well. In addition, just a few verses down in Matthew 16:23 Jesus says to Peter "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man." The supposedly infallible "first Pope" is being called "Satan" and is harshly rebuked and compared to the devil.

User:VargasMilan

Category error: Christ's "Church" is not an institution at all!

The English word "Church" comes from the word Kyrios, meaning "Lord", because a church was regarded as the Lord's (Jesus's) house. Whether the house is a true church depends on whether its people belong to the Lord.

Nor is the Church the people's response to its institution, which may not even be possible, but rather their response to other members, the good angels, Jesus Christ and God, whether living with God or here on earth.

I didn't want to give XavierDinant the legitimacy this debate implies, but felt I had to speak up, while still waiting for an explanation as to why he expressed what he considered an essential doctrine of his belief in the form of an amphiboly (a phrase with a double meaning giving two different counsels). VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 00:23, 21 July 2020 (EDT)

User:RobSmith

The Roman Catholic Church rejects the authority of the Bible.

Peter says,

1 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: 2 shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; 3 not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.[10]

Peter identifies himself as a "fellow elder" and shepherd. This shoots down any claim to "papal authority".

The Roman church cites "Apostolic tradition" because there is no biblical basis for the authority it claims. Peter has no biblical or contemporaneous historical connection to the church at Rome as either a founder or leader.

The binding and loosing of Matthew 16:19 & 18:18 grants no power to add church or Apostolic tradition as equivalent to biblical authority; these passages refer to binding or loosing obligations within scripture.

Biblical authority does not come from "the Church". Paul did not have authority to change the gospel which he himself preached:

8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursedl,[11]

yet the Roman church has preached a contrary gospel. Roman Catholic doctrine teaches salvation by works.[12] The Bible teaches that salvation is not a reward. Romans 4:4-5 teaches,

4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.[13]

The Roman church does not have the authority to declare what is a true and correct interpretation of the Word of God. Romans 14:5 says,

5 One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind.[14]

The Roman church adds to and replaces the authority of the Bible with "developing tradition." However Jude, the Lord's brother, states:

Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.[15]

Does the Catholic Church have the biblical authority of Christ Himself? Isaiah 42:8 says,

I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.[16]

False Gospel

The Roman Catholic church teaches a false gospel. The Roman Catholic Church denies the free gift from God of salvation by grace. The Roman church teaches that salvation must be earned. The Roman church denies the finished work of Christ. The denial of the finished work of Christ is a denial of the person, work, and divinity of Christ himself.

The Roman church teaches a gospel of works, denying both the free gift of grace and the finished work of Christ on the cross. These work requirements are sacraments.

The Roman church claims a person will be held to account for thier own sins, denying the finished work of Christ, and the divine person of Christ himself. The Roman church denies the sacrificial death of Jesus as an acceptable sacrifice for sin.

Denial of grace

Paul teaches in the Book of Romans 11:6:

But if it is by grace, it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.[17]

Roman Catholicism teaches that grace is earned through the work of sacraments, namely baptism, confession and the Eucharist.

Pope Francis I offered time-off for sins in Purgatory by offering "indulgences" for following him on Twitter.[18] This is a denial of (a) the free gift of salvation by grace; (b) the sacrificial atonement of Jesus's blood on the cross; (c) the divinity of Christ himself; (d) the truth of the Word of God.

Denial of the Spirit without measure

John 3:34 says,

For he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for he gives the Spirit without measure.

Roman church doctrine teaches that an Act of Spiritual Communion should be prayed when a person is not physically present or able to attend Mass and receive the Eucharist. An official prayer of the Roman church claims:

Our Lord to Sr. Benigna Consolata: "Make as many Spiritual Communions as possible, to supply for the many Sacramental Communions which are not made. One every quarter of an hour is not enough. Make them shorter, but more numerous."[19]

Denial of Christ as mediator

The Roman church denies that Christ is the sole mediator between God and man.[20] Holy Orders is a non-scriptural sacrament for a non-scriptural priesthood of mediators.

Occult practices

Acts 15:19-20 specifically forbids the drinking of blood:

15 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that drinking the blood of the Eucharist is a work requirement for salvation. Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that a communion waffer becomes the actual, physical body of Jesus and is another work requirement for salvation that must be eaten over and over again, whereas Jesus himself said,

“I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst."[21]

Rejection of the sufficiency of Christ's blood to purge all sin

The non-biblical teaching of a "Purgatory" rejects the sufficiency of Christ's blood sacrifice to purge all sin. Furthermore, the Bible teaches for the believer,

To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.[22]

There is no middle phase of purgation. Jesus told the thief on the cross,

This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise.[23]

The thief did not undergo any last communion or extreme unction. There is no evidence the thief was ever baptized. Repentance and faith was all that was necessary for the thief to get into the Kingdom of God.

No other doctrine

  • 1 Timothy 1:1-3 - Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope; 2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord. 3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine

Catechism, papal bulls, and other such renderings are other doctrine outside of scripture.

Papal fallacies

Peter was never appointed head of the church; Peter was assigned the role of Apostle to the Jews.[24]

Necromancy

The Bible strictly forbids contacting the spirits of the dead.

  • 10 There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer 11 or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead - Deuteronomy 18:10-11 (ESV)
  • Do not turn to mediums or necromancers; do not seek them out, and so make yourselves unclean by them: I am the LORD your God. - Leviticus 19:31 (ESV)
  • 15 Then Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?” Saul answered, “I am in great distress, for the Philistines are warring against me, and God has turned away from me and answers me no more, either by prophets or by dreams. Therefore I have summoned you to tell me what I shall do.” 16 And Samuel said, “Why then do you ask me, since the Lord has turned from you and become your enemy? - 1 Samuel 28:15-16
  • 19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? 20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. Isaiah 8:19-20 (ESV)

The bible instructs us to address all prayers solely to God.[25] The officially sanctioned Roman Catholic prayer to Our Mother of Perpetual Help is addressed to Mary (excerpted):

O Mother of Perpetual Help.....grant that I may ever invoke thy most powerful name, which is the safeguard of the living and the salvation of the dying. O purest Mary! O sweetest Mary! Let thy name henceforth be ever on my lips. Delay not, O Blessed Lady, to help me whenever I call on thee; for in all my temptations, in all my needs, I shall never cease to call on thee, ever repeating thy Sacred Name: Mary! Mary! O what consolation, what sweetness, what confidence fills my soul when I utter thy sacred name, or even only think of thee! I thank the Lord for having given thee, for my good, so sweet, so powerful, so lovely a name. But I will not be content with merely uttering thy name...Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee...In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul....if thou protect me, dear Mother, I fear no thing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them, nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all Hell together; nor even from Jesus...

Whereas the bible teaches:

  • Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. - Acts 4:12 (KJV)
  • And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous - 1 John 2:1b (KJV)
  • For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus - 1 Timothy 2:5 (KJV)

The Roman Catholic church encourages communication with the departed, or prayer to saints. A dead person need not have undergone official canonization into "Sainthood", with the official title of "Saint", to be the recipient of efforts at communication from the living. To be recognized as an official "Saint", an official church inquiry is conducted to determine if the saint-candidate indeed answered prayers of supplicants, typically evidenced by "miracles". Hence, it is not uncommon for Catholic laity to attempt to communicate with dead spouses, parents, children, other family members, friends, neighbors, etc.

Roman church rewrote the 10 Commandments

The Roman church rewrote God's Ten Commandments, merging the first 2 commandments into one, thus scaling down God's condemnation of idolatry, and dividing the 10 Commandment into two to make up for the loss.[26]

Vane repetitions

Jesus instructs believers not to use vane repetitions in prayer, such as the rosary.[27]

Liberation theology

See also: Marxism

Liberation theology was born out of Roman Catholic doctrine and spread by church priests. The term was coined in 1971 by the Peruvian priest Gustavo Gutiérrez, who wrote one of the movement's defining books, A Theology of Liberation. Other noted exponents include he Jesuits Jon Sobrino and Juan Luis Segundo.[28][29]

Section summary

From the scriptures cited here and the evidence of history and the fruit of its works in scandal and corruption, the Roman Catholic Church does not have the authority of Christ or the Bible to preach and to teach, supporting the argument that "No. The Catholic Church does not have the biblical authority of Jesus Christ to preach and to teach the truth forever." Only a church that holds to scripture and is beyond moral reproach has the authority to teach. 1 Timothy says "Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach," (PS the "husband of one wife" goes against the Catholic teaching of celibate priests).

Yes. The Catholic Church does have the biblical authority of Jesus Christ

User:NishantXavier

Biblically, the answer is yes.

For at least Three Reasons (1) St. Peter as Rock means he has been appointed Chief Bishop or Pope of the Church. (2) The Power of Binding and Loosing in Rabbinic Theology means the Power to issue binding judgments and loose pardon for sins, to teach authoritatively as a magisterium. (3) The Keys in light of Isa 22 mean that St. Peter has the Chief Authority of the Royal Steward, who authoritatively made judgments in the name of the King

And there is more historically. (4) St. Peter has an unbroken line of Successors in the Roman See from the beginning (5) St. Peter's Successors are recognized as being Chief Bishops or Episcopal Heads over the whole Church.

See here for some Protestant commentaries that acknowledge this Truth. [30]

St. Peter is the Rock on which the Church on Earth is built

R.T. France (Anglican/Protestant Evangelical)

"The name Peter means 'Rock', and Jesus played on this meaning to designate Peter as the foundation of the new people of God. His leadership would involve the authority of the steward, whose keys symbolized his responsibility to regulate the affairs of the household. Peter would exercise his leadership by his authority to declare what is and is not permissible in the kingdom of heaven (to bind and to loose have this meaning in rabbinic writings)....It is sometimes suggested that because the word for 'rock' (petra) differs from the name Petros, the 'rock' referred to is not Peter himself but the confession he has just made of Jesus as Messiah. In Aramaic, however, the same term kefa would appear in both places; the change in Greek is due to the fact that petra, the normal word for rock, is feminine in gender, and therefore not suitable as a name for Simon! The echo of Peter's name remains obvious, even in Greek; he is the rock, in the sense outlined above." (France, New Bible Commentary with consulting editors Carson, France, Motyer, Wenham [Intervarsity Press, 1994], page 925, 926)

Oscar Cullmann, Theological Dictionary

"The obvious pun which has made its way into the Gk. text as well suggests a material identity between petra and petros, the more so as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the meanings of the two words. On the other hand, only the fairly assured Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between petra and petros: petra = Kepha = petros....Since Peter, the rock of the Church, is thus given by Christ Himself, the master of the house (Is. 22:22; Rev. 3:7), the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he is the human mediator of the resurrection, and he has the task of admitting the people of God into the kingdom of the resurrection...The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in view of the probably different setting of the story...For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of 'thou art Rock' and 'on this rock I will build' shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom He has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected." (Cullmann, article on "Rock" (petros, petra) trans. and ed. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [Eerdmans Publishing, 1968], volume 6, page 98, 107, 108)

The Key of the Royal Steward stand for his authority to bind and to loose, to open doors and to close them

Eduard Schweizer (Presbyterian/Reformed)

"In Jewish interpretation, the key of David refers to the teachers of the Law (exiled in Babylon); according to Matthew 23:13, the 'keys of the Kingdom of heaven' are in the hands of the teachers of the Law. A contrast is here drawn between them and Peter. He is thus not the gatekeeper of heaven, but the steward of the Kingdom of heaven upon earth. His function is described in more detail as 'binding and loosing' ....the saying must from the very outset have referred to an authority like that of the teachers of the Law. In this context, 'binding" and 'loosing' refer to the magisterium to declare a commandment binding or not binding....For Matthew, however, there is only one correct interpretation of the Law, that of Jesus. This is accessible to the community through the tradition of Peter...Probably we are dealing here mostly with teaching authority, and always with the understanding that God must ratify what Petrine tradition declares permitted or forbidden in the community." (Schweizer, page 343)

Willoughby C. Allen, The International Critical Commentary

"The figure of the gates of Hades suggests the metaphor of the keys. There were keys of Hades, Rev 1:18; cf. 9:1; 20:1. The apocalyptic writer describes the risen Christ as having the keys of Hades, i.e. having power over it, power to enter it, and power to release from it, or to imprison in it. In the same way, 'the kingdom of the heavens' can be likened to a citadel with barred gates. He who held the keys would have power within it, power to admit, power to exclude. In Rev 3:7 this power is held by Christ Himself [quotes Rev 3:7]...The words are modelled on Is 22:22, and express supreme authority. To hold the keys is to have absolute right, which can be contested by none...It would, therefore, be not unexpected if we found the Messiah or Son of Man described as having the keys of the kingdom of the heavens. This would imply that He was supreme within it. But it is surprising to find this power delegated to S. Peter...To S. Peter were to be given the keys of the kingdom. The kingdom is here, as elsewhere in this Gospel, the kingdom to be inaugurated when the Son of Man came upon the clouds of heaven. If S. Peter was to hold supreme authority within it, the other apostles were also to have places of rank...To 'bind' and to 'loose' in Jewish legal terminology are equivalent to 'forbid' and 'allow,' to 'declare forbidden' and to 'declare allowed'...The terms, therefore, describe an authority of a legal nature. If he who has the keys has authority of an administrative nature, he who binds and looses exercises authority of a legislative character....Further, the position of v. 18, with its description of the Church as a fortress impregnable against the attacks of evil (the gates of Hades), suggest irresistibly that 'the keys of the kingdom' mean more than power to open merely, and imply rather authority within the kingdom. And this is confirmed by the 'binding' and 'loosing' which immediately follow...What were the keys thus given? Even if we identify the kingdom with the Church, it is not entirely satisfactory to suppose that the Lord simply foretold that S. Peter was to take a prominent part in the work of opening the door of faith to the Gentiles. His share in that work, though a great, was not an exclusive one....The motive must have been to emphasise the prominence of S. Peter in the Christan body as foretold and sanctioned by Christ Himself...They [the apostles] had left all to follow Christ; but when He sat on the throne of His glory they would sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel, 19:18. And amongst them Peter was pre-eminent. He was protos, 10:2." (Allen, The International Critical Commentary [orig 1909, 1985], page 176ff)

Binding and loosing mean Authoritative Pronouncements and Teaching Magisterium

William F. Albright and C.S. Mann comment on Matthew 16:19

"Isaiah 22:15ff undoubtedly lies behind this saying. The keys are the symbol of authority, and Roland de Vaux [Ancient Israel, tr. by John McHugh, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1961] rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vizier, the master of the house, the chamberlain, of the royal household in ancient Israel. Eliakim is described as having the same authority in Isaiah; it was Hilkiah's position until he was ousted, and Jotham as regent is also described as 'over the household' [2 Kings 15:5]....It is of considerable importance that in other contexts, when the disciplinary affairs of the community are being discussed [cf. Matt 18:18; John 20:23] the symbol of the keys is absent, since the sayings apply in those instances to a wider circle....The role of Peter as steward of the Kingdom is further explained as being the exercise of administrative authority, as was the case of the OT chamberlain who held the 'keys.' The clauses 'on earth,' 'in heaven', have reference to the permanent character of the steward's work." (Albright/Mann, The Anchor Bible: Matthew, page 196-197)

St. Peter's Successors in the bishopric of Rome are an unbroken line of Successors

The succession list of bishops in the Apostolic See of Rome of the first two centuries as provided by Schaff (volume 2, page 166) is --

St. Peter (d. 64 or 67) St. Linus (67-76) St. Anacletus (76-88) St. Clement I (88-97) St. Evaristus (97-105) St. Alexander I (105-115) St. Sixtus I (115-125) St. Telesphorus (125-136) St. Hyginus (136-140) St. Pius I (140-155) St. Anicetus (155-166) St. Soter (166-175) St. Eleutherius (175-189) St. Victor I (189-199) "It must in justice be admitted, however, that the list of Roman bishops has by far the preminence in age, completeness, integrity of succession, consistency of doctrine and policy, above every similar catalogue, not excepting those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople...." (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, page 166)

St. Peter's Successors are recognized as Chief Bishops or Episcopal Heads by the Whole Church

Catholic historian Philip Hughes writes --

"Ever since the popes were first articulate about the General Council, they have claimed the right to control its action and to give or withhold an approbation of its decisions which stamps them as the authentic teaching of the Church of Christ. Only through their summoning it, or through their consenting to take their place at it (whether personally or by legates sent in their name), or by their subsequent acceptance of the council, does the assembly of bishops become a General Council. No member of the Church has ever proposed that a General Council shall be summoned and the pope be left out, nor that the pope should take any other position at the General Council but as its president...in no council has it been moved that the Bishop of X be promoted to the place of the Bishop of Rome, or that the bishop of Rome's views be disregarded and held of no more account than those of the bishop of any other major see...the general shape is ever discernible of a Roman Primacy universally recognized, and submitted to, albeit (at times) unwillingly -- recognized and submitted to because, so the bishops believed, it was set up by God himself." (Hughes, The Church in Crisis: A History of the General Councils, page 5-6)

From the old Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) --

"History bears complete testimony that from the very earliest times the Roman See has ever claimed the supreme headship, and that that headship has been freely acknowledged by the universal Church. We shall here confine ourselves to the consideration of the evidence afforded by the first three centuries. The first witness is St. Clement, a disciple of the Apostles, who, after Linus and Anacletus, succeeded St. Peter as the fourth in the list of popes....The tone of authority [in his Epistle to the Corinthians] which inspires the latter appears so clearly that [Protestant scholar J.B.] Lightfoot did not hesitate to speak of it as 'the first step towards papal domination' ...Thus, at the very commencement of church history, before the last survivor of the Apostles had passed away, we find a Bishop of Rome, himself a disciple of St. Peter, intervening in the affairs of another Church and claiming to settle the matter by a decision spoken under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Such a fact admits of one explanation alone. It is that in the days when the Apostolic teaching was yet fresh in men's minds the universal Church recognized in the Bishop of Rome the office of supreme head....The limits of the present article prevent us from carrying the historical argument further than the year 300. Nor is it in fact necessary to do so. From the beginning of the fourth century the supremacy of Rome is writ large upon the page of history. It is only in regard to the first age of the Church that any question can arise. But the facts we have recounted are entirely sufficient to prove to any unprejudiced mind that the supremacy was exercised and acknowledged from the days of the Apostles." (volume 12, article "Pope" page 263, 264)

Anglican scholar J.N.D. Kelly in his classic work Early Christian Doctrines sums up how unanimous the Church was in the patristic period, particularly the fourth and fifth centuries where the documentary evidence becomes overwhelming for the primacy and authority of the Papacy --

"Everywhere, in the East no less than the West, Rome enjoyed a special prestige, as is indicated by the precedence accorded without question to it....Thus Rome's preeminance remained undisputed in the patristic period. For evidence of it the student need only recall the leading position claimed as a matter of course by the popes, and freely conceded to them, at the councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451). We even find the fifth-century historians Socrates and Sozomen concluding...that it was unconstitutional for synods to be held without the Roman pontiff being invited or for decisions to be taken without his concurrence. At the outbreak of the Christological controversy, it will be remembered, both Nestorius and Cyril hastened to bring their cases to Rome, the latter declaring that the ancient custom of the churches constrained him to communicate matters of such weight to the Pope and to seek his advice before acting. In one of his sermons he goes so far as to salute Celestine as 'the archbishop of the whole world' (Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pages 406, 407

St. Peter's Successors like Pope St. Clement of Rome exercised supreme jurisdictional authority

On St. Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD), the fourth Pope from St. Peter, Protestant early Church Historian Philip Schaff states --

"...it can hardly be denied that the document [Clement to the Corinthians] reveals the sense of a certain superiority over all ordinary congregations. The Roman church here, without being asked (as far as appears), gives advice, with superior administrative wisdom, to an important church in the East, dispatches messengers to her, and exhorts her to order and unity in a tone of calm dignity and authority, as the organ of God and the Holy Spirit. This is all the more surprising if St. John, as is probable, was then still living in Ephesus, which was nearer to Corinth than Rome." (Schaff, volume 2, page 158)

From the New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) --

"That in the primitive Christian period the Roman Church was credited with an authority superior to that of any other patriarchal see, can be gathered from the letter written by Pope Clement I (c. 92) to the Corinthians in which he made important statements concerning the nature of the Church and laid down principles that in embryonic form contains maxims of government. That in view of its location, the Roman Church was in actual fact credited with preeminence over other sees is a matter of history....Numerous testimonies could be cited to prove the factual preeminence of the Roman Church." (volume 10, article "Papacy" page 952)

Orthodox Bishops and Priests come close to admitting a Primacy of Authority of the Roman Pontiff

"The Orthodox study The Primacy of Peter (St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1992) by John Meyendorff states on St. Clement of Rome and the ante-Nicene period (before 325 AD) --

The epistle [Clement of Rome to the Corinthians] is couched in very measured terms, in the form of an exhortation; but at the same time it clearly shows that the Church of Rome was aware of the decisive weight, in the Church of Corinth's eyes, that must attach to its witness about the events in Corinth. So the Church of Rome, at the end of the first century, exhibits a marked sense of its own priority, in point of witness about events in other churches. Note also that the Roman Church did not feel obliged to make a case, however argued, to justify its authoritative pronouncements on what we should now call the internal concerns of other churches. There is nothing said about the grounds of this priority....Apparently Rome had no doubt that its priority would be accepted without argument." (Afanassieff from Meyendorff, page 125-126)

"Rome's vocation [in the "pre-Nicene period"] consisted in playing the part of arbiter, settling contentious issues by witnessing to the truth or falsity of whatever doctrine was put before them. Rome was truly the center where all converged if they wanted their doctrine to be accepted by the conscience of the Church. They could not count upon success except on one condition -- that the Church of Rome had received their doctrine -- and refusal from Rome predetermined the attitude the other churches would adopt. There are numerous cases of this recourse to Rome...." (Afanassieff from Meyendorff, page 128f, 133)

"It is impossible to deny that, even before the appearance of local primacies, the Church from the first days of her existence possessed an ecumenical center of unity and agreement. In the apostolic and the Judaeo-Christian period, it was the Church of Jerusalem, and later the Church of Rome -- 'presiding in agape,' according to St. Ignatius of Antioch. This formula and the definition of the universal primacy contained in it have been aptly analyzed by Fr. Afanassieff and we need not repeat his argument here. Neither can we quote here all the testimonies of the Fathers and the Councils unanimously acknowledging Rome as the senior church and the center of ecumenical agreement. It is only for the sake of biased polemics that one can ignore these testimonies, their consensus and significance." (Schmemann from Meyendorff, page 163-164)

User:Dataclarifier

Proofs that condemnations of Catholic doctrine are false

Read Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church, by the Right Rev. Henry G. Graham
and the Catechism of the Catholic Church

Reverend Graham says in his Introduction:

“IF all were true that is alleged against the Catholic Church in her treatment of Holy Scripture, then the proper title of these papers should be [not] ‘How we got', but 'How we have not got the Bible'. The common and received opinion about the matter among non-Catholics in Britain, for the most part, has been that Rome hates the Bible-that she has done all she could to destroy it—that in all countries where she has held sway she has kept the Bible from the hands of the people—has taken it and burned it whenever she found anyone reading it. Or if she cannot altogether prevent its publication or its perusal, at least she renders it as nearly useless as possible by sealing it up in a dead language which the majority of people can neither read nor understand. And all this she does, (so we are told), because she knows that her doctrines are absolutely opposed to and contradicted by the letter of God's written Word—she holds ­and propagates dogmas and traditions which could not stand one moment's examination if exposed to the searching light of Holy Scripture. [...]
“The Protestant account of pre-reformation Catholicism has been largely a falsification of history. All the faults and sins that could possibly be raked up or invented against Rome, or against particular bishops or priests, were presented to the people of this unhappy land, and all her best acts misconstrued, misjudged, misrepresented, and nothing of good told in her favour. She has been painted as all black and hideous, and no beauty could be seen in her. Consequently people came to believe the tradition as a matter of course, and accepted it as history [...]
“But nowadays many are enquiring—Is it really so? Are we sure of our facts? Are we not building up mountains of abuse and calumny on a false suppositon? Just as all have come to know that the sun, as a matter of fact, does not rise or set but stands still, that there never was a Pope Joan but his name was John, that monasteries and convents are homes of learning and sanctity and charity, and that no Catholic ever pays or ever could pay a single farthing to get his sins remitted—and all this through the spread of knowledge and education and enlightenment and study—so also I venture to think that people will now be rightly considered ignorant and blameworthy, and at the least behind the times, if they do not learn that the notion I have alluded to above about the Catholic Church and the Bible is false and nonsensical—historically false and inherently nonsensical. By a calm consideration of the facts of history and a mind open to conviction on genuine evidence, they will be driven by sheer force of honesty to the conclusion that the Catholic Church, so far from being the monster of iniquity that she is painted, has in very truth been the parent, the author and maker under God, of the Bible; that she has guarded it and defended it all through the ages, and preserved it from error or destruction; that she has ever held it in highest veneration and esteem, and has grounded her doctrines upon it; that she alone has the right to call it her book; that she alone possesses the true Bible and the whole Bible, and that copies of the Scriptures existing outside of her pale, are partly incorrect and partly defective, and that whatever in them is true, is true because derived from her who alone possesses the Book in its fulness and its truth. If they were Catholics, they would love God's Holy Word more and more; they would understand it better; they would adore the Divine Providence that took such a wise and sure means of preserving and perpetuating it; and they would profoundly admire the Catholic Church for her ceaseless vigilance, untiring zeal, and unswerving fidelity to the commission entrusted to her by Almighty God.”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church represents the actual doctrine of the Church. Condemnations of the doctrine are examples of straw man arguments, based on misrepresentation and specious reasoning, which are all demonstrably falsehoods of error. People who have read it have come to believe the actual truth of the doctrine is perfectly biblical. They have found the Catholic Church in all its forms to be the most biblical Church on earth.

Keep in mind that what people say about Catholic doctrine is not necessarily true.
Keep in mind that the scandal of bad and sinful behavior does not invalidate doctrine.
Keep in mind that hypocrites are found in every Christian denomination. Their bad example has never proved that Christianity itself is false.

Contentions over Bible authority vs Church authority: What the Bible says about it

I'll address the primary issue I addressed on the purgatory debate page—

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter [Greek rock], and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 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."
"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of God, the pillar and ground of the truth."
"Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you."
"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith alone.
"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well-doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king."
"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophesy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophesy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of."
"Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us."
"But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit."

(Texts from the King James Version: Matthew 16:18-19; 1 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 13:17; James 2:24; 1 Peter 2:13-17; 2 Peter 1:19–2:2; 1 John 2:18-19; Jude 17-19)

On a rock Jesus built his church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Therefore, according to the Bible itself, it is impossible that the church could ever teach what is not the truth. This is simply the doctrine of the Bible about the church, and it is simply the same as the Catholic doctrine about the church. Therefore according to the Bible the doctrine of the church is the truth taught by the Holy Ghost.
Nowhere does the Bible teach that the leaders and members of the church will all live impeccable lives free of all sin. Bad example, like that of Judas, does not invalidate the truth of the doctrine of the church.

I stand with the Bible just as every professing Bible-believer should. It's the Word of God. Amen. Period. The end. --Dataclarifier (talk) 12:34, 2 August 2020 (EDT)

Peter the Rock

The Greek of the New Testament indisputably shows that Peter is the rock, not Jesus: πέτρος Greek Petros as an appellative: thou art a rock, Aram. כֵּיפָא kepa. The form ὁ πέτρος is likewise common among classical writers, and that not merely in the sense of a stone, as everywhere in Homer in contradistinction to πέτρα Greek petra (see Duncan, p. 937, ed. Rost, and Buttmann, Lexil. II. p. 179), but also as meaning a rock (Plat. Ax. p. 371 E: Σισύφου πέτρος; Soph. Phil. 272, O. C. 19, 1591; Pind. Nem. iv. 46, x. 126). Jesus declares Peter to be a rock on account of that strong and stedfast faith in himself to which, under the influence of a special revelation from God, he had just given expression. According to John 1:43, however, Jesus conferred the Grecized form of the name Cephas Kepas Aram. כֵּיפָא kepa rock upon him at their very first interview (according to Mark 3:16, somewhat later); but our passage Matthew 16:18 is not to be understood as simply recording the giving of the name, or the giving of it for the second time. It is rather intended to be taken as a record of the declaration made by Jesus, to the effect that Simon was in reality all that the name, conferred upon him, implied. Consequently our passage is in no way inconsistent with that of John 1:43 just referred to, which could only have been the case if the words used had been σὺ κληθήσῃ Πέτρος.

καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ The Greek emphasis is on ΤΑΎΤῌ ταύτῃ, which points to Peter (not to Jesus, as Augustine would have us suppose), and to be understood thus: on no other than on this rock. —https://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/16-18.htm [31]

Response:
  • The letter killeth; the spirit gives life.
  • The stone which the builders rejected has become head of the corner. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 14:58, 5 August 2020 (EDT)
Thanks for the move of the above commentary on the Greek of Matthew 16:18 to this Debate page. But simply FYI, it isn't "my own comment". That's why I didn't sign it. I plainly copied the stated expertise of an established and internationally reputable Greek linguist from the biblehub.com commentaries on Matthew 16:18 and "signed" it with a link to the actual online source. What he says about the Greek grammatical import of the passage is simply a fact plainly and clearly not open to debate. It says what it says. This expert linguist and scholar simply states what the Greek of the scripture passage states. There is no debate about its meaning among the international community of Bible linguistic experts in Greek. He says the meaning is clear. All of them agree. It points to Peter as the rock Jesus referred to. "I say to you, you are a rock, and on this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." I felt that it would be useful as a fact truthfully presented as an indisputable fact. It was not intended to provoke disputatious debate. How could anyone argue with such a fact, the grammatical structure according to the Greek meaning pointing directly to Peter, not Jesus? I'm glad it's been posted onto this Debate page where it might be most useful to seekers of truth who want to know what Jesus really meant according to the original Greek. It's even more interesting to me that not one of the extant manuscripts containing Matthew 16:18 vary in any way from each other. They all say the same exact thing. --Dataclarifier (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2020 (EDT)
  • 1 Corinthians 3:11 - For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
RobSTrump 2Q2Q 17:21, 5 August 2020 (EDT)
Jesus simply said what he said. --Dataclarifier (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2020 (EDT)
I bet $100 I can go to biblehub and find another expert source to refute whoever that was. This is what you call confirmation bias.
You can weasel your way out of this mess by simply saying, Christ is the head of the corner User:RobSmith|RobSUser talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q
None of them there refutes the Greek grammar of the passage. You can check it for yourself. --Dataclarifier (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2020 (EDT)
It's a play on words. What do the commentaries have to say about
  • 1 Corinthians 3:11 - For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. User:RobSmith|RobSUser talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q 17:25, 5 August 2020 (EDT)
Jesus simply said what he said. --Dataclarifier (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2020 (EDT)
(ec) You even get a twofer in this argument: Cephas also means head. Is Peter the chief Capstone? User:RobSmith|RobSUser talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q 17:31, 5 August 2020 (EDT)
Jesus simply meant what he said according to the Greek. "I say to you, you are a rock, and on this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." I can't change it. --Dataclarifier (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2020 (EDT)
Even the KJV text of John 1:42 says, "And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone." Not even the KJV says it means "head": it says "which is by interpretation, A stone." According to the interlinear text of John 1:42 this word "Cephas" is from the Aramaic "kepa" which means "a rock". Check out Strong's number G4074 for "stone" at John 1:42. Whether big or small it still means "a rock". --Dataclarifier (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2020 (EDT)
(ec) Let's go back to the original citation in scripture, Isaiah 28:16:
Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
This scripture is repeated numerous times in the Bible by Luke, Peter and Paul. Two questions: (1) Is this unfulfilled prophecy? (2) Are you attempting to lay a foundation other than that which has been laid? User:RobSmith|RobSUser talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q 17:40, 5 August 2020 (EDT)
Jesus also said (Matt 21:44), whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder
so if you haven't been broken yet (repentance) or ground to powder, ye are still in your sin - pride, the original sin. User:RobSmith|RobSUser talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q 17:53, 5 August 2020 (EDT)
I didn't say it. Jesus did. --Dataclarifier (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2020 (EDT)
And there's nothing wrong with humbling yourself and falling upon the Rock of Salvation:[32]
  • Psalm 34:18 - The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart
It is pride that keeps us from repentance, and insures you will be ground to powder in judgement, if you neglect so great a salvation. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 18:45, 5 August 2020 (EDT)
Infant baptism does not wash away the original sin of pride, which hinders many adults from repentance and salvation. And it all begins with denying that Christ is the rock and foundation of our faith. Look at the alternative Jesus promises to those who don't humble themselves and fall upon the rock: they will be ground to powder. I didn't say it, Jesus did. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 19:03, 5 August 2020 (EDT)
Answer: The Church has always had the religious authority ordained and established by God (for there is no authority except from God) and whoever resists the authority resists what God has ordained, and those who resist shall incur judgment ("damnation" KJV), because: Jesus Himself said on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth, through which the mystery of God hidden from the foundation of the world is revealed, the one body of Christ (not many), the church of the living God which he purchased with His own blood, the temple of God in the Spirit, with us forever, leading into all the truth, obeying the command to be obedient to the leaders who watch over our souls, the church in which God appointed the elders as guardians to take heed to themselves and to feed the flock of the Lord, and keep the traditions delivered to them whether by word of mouth or by letter (whether oral or written), who have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever they bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever they loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, but those that went out were antichrists who despised authority and separated themselves and set up divisions, worldly persons devoid of the Spirit, antichrists who went out and taught another gospel and another Christ that it might be made manifest that they were not of us.
Every Bible-believing Christian who has read the Bible and is familiar with its text recognizes these passages immediately. The Bible itself commands us to obey the leaders who watch over our souls (Heb. 13:17), to submit to every institution of men for the Lord's sake and to submit to the elders (1 Peter 2:13-17; 5:5-6), because their established authority in the church is ordained and established by God (Rom. 13:1-2). This is not private interpretation. If the authority is of God, we are commanded to submit and obey. If the authority is of men, we are commanded to submit and obey. In either case, we are commanded to submit and obey. It's what the Bible says, clearly, plainly and simply, according to the Word of the Lord.
--Dataclarifier (talk) 03:40, 7 August 2020 (EDT)
For the benefit of readers who need to check for themselves as the Beroeans did in Acts 17:10-12, the above chapter-and-verse passages are: Romans 13:1-2; Matthew 16:18; 1 Timothy 3:15; Ephesians 2:9; 1 Corinthians 12:12-13; Acts 20:28; Ephesians 2:21-22; John 14:16-17; John 16:13; Hebrews 13:17; Acts 20:28 (again); 2 Thessalonians 2:15; Matthew 16:19; Matthew 18:18; 1 John 2:18-19; Jude 8; Jude 19; John 2:18-19 (again); Galatians 1:6-7; 2 Corinthians 11:4; Hebrews 13:17 (again); 1 Peter 2:13-17; 1 Peter 5:5-6; Romans 13:1-2 (again); 1 Peter 5:5-6 (again). Compare John 8:43; John 8:47.
Let me point out that in Ephesians 2:19-20 the household of God (which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth 1 Timothy 3:15) is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone (supporting the whole foundation); and that the new Jerusalem has twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb (but the Lamb is not one of the twelve foundations, Revelation 20:16); and that the living stone is joined by living stones built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood (1 Peter 2:4-5). There is no contradiction in Jesus saying to Peter (= "rock"), "you are a rock, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it".
Since scripture cannot contradict scripture, "and the scripture cannot be broken", because God "cannot deny himself", there is no contradiction in the Bible saying Jesus is the rock foundation supporting Peter and the apostles and prophets as the twelve foundations of the new Jerusalem and that Peter is the rock on which he built his church as He Himself said according to the Greek grammar of what he said which points to Peter not Jesus. The foundation of the church is firm as rock, the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Matthew 7:24.
--Dataclarifier (talk) 05:47, 7 August 2020 (EDT)
In 1 Corinthians 3:10 Paul says that he is the one who laid the foundation: "According to the commission of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it." But in the next verse he says, "For no other foundation can any man lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus." This is true! But a literalist would see in these two verses an absolute contradiction. Consider this: no man can lay the foundation of the church Jesus built; only God can lay the foundation, and Jesus is God and man. But Revelation says there are "twelve foundations", not "one". A literalist would see in these two statements an absolute contradiction in the Bible: how can there be twelve when there is only one? The twelve foundations of the new Jerusalem are not laid by man (human beings) but are laid only by God and man. A literalist would see in the one foundation and the twelve foundations a contradiction. The foundation of the apostles and prophets is laid by God the Spirit: "because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." 2 Peter 1:21. The rock of salvation laid a foundation of rock that is twelve foundations chosen. The first was Peter, "a rock". One of them was "a devil" John 6:70-71. But this did not invalidate the word of the Lord. Afterward, the Eleven, led by Peter, chose another, guided by God: Matthias. The apostolic office was empty but then a successor was chosen by lot, just as the apostolic office of Peter vacated by death is filled by lots cast by the elders of the church from that day to this. The foundation of the twelve foundations of the church was built by the foundation (the same foundation that Paul laid, which is Christ Jesus), and laid by Him on a foundation of a rock-Petros, the first of twelve foundations He laid, and was built up into a house of living stones by the living stone as a dwelling-place of God in the Spirit, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. There is no contradiction.--Dataclarifier (talk) 08:30, 8 August 2020 (EDT)
Roman Catholic doctrine is built on a one legged stool that Peter is the foundation rock of the church, not Christ. And furthermore that "all authority", which includes "authority" to nullify prophecy and scripture, was passed to men. When this one leg is kicked out from the foundation, the entire doctrinal structure comes down.
As can be seen above, the Catholic gospel is a gospel of wrath and condemnation, promising hell to people who do not follow the ordinances of men. Example, the church ordered in A.D. 1950 that whosever doesn't attend mass on August 15th will go to hell (a few loopholes and exemptions were written into this new supposed addition to biblical truth).
By replacing Peter as the foundation Rock upon which the Christian church is built, no other scriptures of the Bible make sense. Roman Catholics in fact are offended when the Bible is quoted, such as 1 Peter 2:8, a rock of offense, proving the truth of the Bible. Christ is a Rock of offense to those yet in their pride and sin, as the Pharisees were.
Pride is original sin - worshipping and serving the creature more that the Creator, as Lucifer did when he led the rebellion against God and was cast down to earth. God made a plan to re-take the earth from evil when he created Adam; however Adam soon joined the rebellion against God and lifted himself up in pride; he felt he knew better than God. Jesus came to reconcile us with God and finish the work of retaking the earth from evil. But Roman doctrine only preaches wrath (as aptly illustrated in the above posting) to those who refuse the decrees of men, which render the Word of God to no affect.
Infant baptism theoretically washes away self-will and pride, making a grown adult believe they have no need to humble themselves and repent of this egregious error and sin, that like Jews of the circumcision, they felt they had no need to hear Jesus's voice because by birthright they were already Sons of God. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 19:29, 7 August 2020 (EDT)
That is an untrue, distorted misrepresentation of Catholic doctrine. Catholic doctrine teaches that genuine humility all life-long is necessary along with sincere repentance and confession of all mortal sins committed after Baptism coupled with a heart-felt genuine purpose of amendment of life according to the example of the holiness of Christ. — http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c2a4.htm Catechism of the Catholic Church Part Two, Section Two, Article 4
--Dataclarifier (talk) 10:29, 8 August 2020 (EDT)
Yes, a doctrine of works, rejecting the Gospel of Grace and the sacrificial atonement of Christ. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 13:08, 8 August 2020 (EDT)
  • Christ died for the ungodly. - Romans 5:6. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 13:14, 8 August 2020 (EDT)
  • For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." Ephesians 2:10. Bad behavior and the scandal of sinners in the Church is not doctrine. That's why Paul throughout his epistles commands believers to repent and amend their lives, and John tells his "little children" to confess their sins, lest they be condemned with the wicked. --Dataclarifier (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2020 (EDT)
  • Bible Verses on Works, the Necessity of Good Works (cgg.org) --a page display of the Bible text of 63 passages that speak plainly without any comment that you can readily read for yourself, shown in the following sequence:
    Ephesians 2:8-10; Philippians 2:12-13; John 14:15; Titus 2:14; James 2:14-26; 1 Peter 1:15-17; Ephesians 4:22-24; Titus 2:11-12; Revelation 20:12-13; Matthew 16:24; Romans 12:1-2; Hebrews 4:1; Hebrews 6:1; Matthew 16:27; Matthew 25:28-30; Romans 2:13; Hebrews 11:4; 1 John 2:3-6; 1 John 3:3; 1 John 5:3; Matthew 6:37; Matthew 19:16-19; John 6:27; John 15:8; John 15:16; Romans 6:1-2; Romans 6:4; Romans 6:18-19; Romans 8:7; 1 Corinthians 3:8-10; 1 Corinthians 15:58; 2 Corinthians 5:10; 2 Corinthians 6:1; Ephesians 5:1-2; Colossians 3:8-10; Hebrews 6:10; Psalm 119:1; Psalm 119:10; Psalm 119:172; Proverbs 24:30-34; Matthew 7:21; Matthew 19:21-22; Matthew 25:14; Matthew 25:24-25; Matthew 25:41; Luke 13:24; John 15:14; Acts 5:32; Romans 5:5-11; Romans 7:22-23; Romans 14:12; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Corinthians 6:19-20; 1 Corinthians 9:27; Galatians 5:6; Colossians 3:5; Colossians 3:23-24; Titus 1:16; Hebrews 11:7; 1 John 3:18; Revelation 2:23; Revelation 3:21; Revelation 19:7-8
    --Dataclarifier (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2020 (EDT)
You've never addressed the main point infant baptism does not wash away the sin of pride.
Secondly, spamming the page with scripture references is pointless - none of it supports the argument. Anyone can copy pastes tons of scripture references. It does not make the arguments look scholarly or learned. OTOH, reverting actual bible quotations prove the point that Christ is a stumbling block and rock of offense.[33] RobSTrump 2Q2Q 18:08, 8 August 2020 (EDT)
The "main point" of this Debate is not infant baptism. The main point is framed in the question of the Debate addressed on this page: Does the Catholic Church have the biblical authority of Christ Himself to preach and to teach the truth forever?
--Dataclarifier (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2020 (EDT)
You're right. This is what happens when you start a flame war. confusion abounds. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 21:55, 8 August 2020 (EDT)

"By their fruits ye shall know them": The Fruits of Catholicism

"By their fruits ye shall know them". All of the excellent and praiseworthy benefits of Western Civilization are the fruit of the tree of the Catholic Church and the doctrine of her magisterium leading into all the truth.
See Commentary: History Shows Contributions of the Catholic Church to Western Civilization —major contributions to Science, Astronomy, Medicine, establishment of Universities, Hospitals and care centers for the elderly, women and children and orphans, charitable institutions for the poor (all unknown in the pagan world), Christian missionaries sent to pagan lands, converting them from ignorance to knowledge of Jesus Christ, and preserving the Bible.
In addition, the Catholic Church has produced by the grace of God men and women eminent for their holiness and goodness and devotion to Jesus Christ, as the direct fruit of her doctrines and sacraments. Even non-Christians have admired their example, and praised even many of her popes and bishops as saintly examples of Christian goodness to follow. They have even died as martyrs of the Lord for their faith in Jesus Christ. --Dataclarifier (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2020 (EDT)
10 Influential Saints and Their Legends --Dataclarifier (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2020 (EDT)

Section summary

From the abundance of scripture on the Church cited here, and the fact that the scandal of bad and sinful behavior by individual members and leaders of the Church does not invalidate Church doctrine (which condemns the scandal of bad and sinful behavior), the conclusion drawn from the Bible itself and presented here in this section is supported: "Yes. The Catholic Church does have the biblical authority of Jesus Christ to preach and to teach the truth forever". Not even the gates of hell shall prevail against the Church, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
--Dataclarifier (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2020 (EDT)

See also

References

  1. ↑ Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen gentium, 8
  2. ↑ https://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26940
  3. ↑ http://www.daily49er.com/opinion/our-view-catholic-church-needs-administrative-reform-1.2200659
  4. ↑ ATTEMPTS TO CENSOR DONOHUE FAIL.April 1, 2010 by Bill
  5. ↑ https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/31/bill-donohue-catholic-sex_n_520187.html
  6. ↑ The Protestant Work Ethic: Alive & Well…In China By Hugh Whelchel on September 24, 2012
  7. ↑ Christianity Today, The Surprising Discovery About Those Colonialist, Proselytizing Missionaries, January 8, 2014
  8. ↑ The Protestant Work Ethic: Alive & Well…In China By Hugh Whelchel on September 24, 2012
  9. ↑ https://www.thattheworldmayknow.com/gates-of-hell-article
  10. ↑ 1 Peter 1:1-5 (ESV)
  11. ↑ Galatians 1:8 (ESV)
  12. ↑ Council of Trent. The Catholic Church declared in the VII session in canon IV that, "If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema (excommunicated)."
  13. ↑ Romans 4:4-5 (KJV) 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness. (ESV).
  14. ↑ Roman Catholicism, Sola Ecclesia, Tradition, and Romans 14, by Matt Slick. CARM.
  15. ↑ Jude 3 (ESV)
  16. ↑ Isaiah 42:8 (KJV)
  17. ↑ Romans 11:6 (ESV)
  18. ↑ [1]
  19. ↑ Act of Spiritual Communion, catholic.org
  20. ↑ 1 Timothy 2:5
  21. ↑ John 6:35
  22. ↑ 2 Corinthians 5:7
  23. ↑ Luke 23:43
  24. ↑ Galatians 2:8
  25. ↑ Phillipians 4:6
  26. ↑ http://www.cognm.org/cognm/Publications/The%20Ten%20Commandments%20in%20the%20Bible%20verses%20the%20Catholic%20Ten%20Commandments.htm The Ten Commandments In the Bible verses the Catholic Ten Commandments]
  27. ↑ Matthew 6:7
  28. ↑ Richard P. McBrien, Catholicism (Harper Collins, 1994), chapter IV.
  29. ↑ Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation, First (Spanish) edition published in Lima, Peru, 1971; first English edition published by Orbis Books (Maryknoll, New York), 1973.
  30. ↑ http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm
  31. ↑ https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:NishantXavier&diff=prev&oldid=1674432
  32. ↑ Palm 89:26
  33. ↑ . [2]
Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Does_the_Catholic_Church_have_the_biblical_authority_of_Christ_Himself_to_preach_and_to_teach_the_truth_forever%3F&oldid=1677320"