The Protestant Intentional Overlooking The Words Of Our Lord.

[White Knight]

Okay, I have to say something about Majority of Protestant Christianity overlooking, distorting, removing, replacing, etc etc the certian words Jesus had spoken Himself about His own teachings and, What He gave to the Apostles, What he gave to Peter.

Like Matthew 16:13-19 "When Jesus went into the region of Caesuparea Philppi He asked His disciples [b][color="#FF0000"]"'Who do people say that the Son of Man is?'"[/color][/b] They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others say Jeremiah or one of the prophets.'" He said to them [b][color="#FF0000"]"' But who do you say I am?'" [/color][/b]Simon Peter said in reply "'You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.'" Jesus said to him in reply [color="#FF0000"][b]"'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven; and whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosen in Heaven.'"[/b][/color]

[u][b]When you read Sacred Scripture in the true Context, this really makes sense, and logically this is strong enough evidence to prove that Jesus founded HIS Church on Peter, and gave Peter leadership. Now Protestants ethier twist, or say this is twisted by the Catholic Church to help support their claims, [size=4]Its NON SENSE[/size], If you look at this paragraph of Sacred Scripture You will come to the Conclusion that, Jesus ment what He ment, The Catholic Church is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT on this Matter, Period. I conclude with an AMEN to this. [/b][/u]

[i][b]Now the Gospel according to John is probally the one too look at to get a strong feeling that Jesus wanted and DID make a Unified, Universal Church, One Shepherd, One Flock. the most, plus at this Gospel we get the strong Catholic Teachings and Beliefs according to the words of Jesus HIMSELF, We find out in the first half of the book that Mary had some influeance on Jesus's ministry, Also toward the middle we find out that Jesus is the Good Shepherd watching over His Flock, and at the end of the book, Jesus gives His Church the ability to Forgive sins or to retain them, Also not only that but Jesus as one of His final words on the cross, He gave us His Very own Mother.Very Catholic very True[/b][/i]

Heres what John 2:1-12 have to say about Jesus and Mary, and Mary's involvement in starting the ministry

John 10: 1-21 This speaks about Jesus as the Good Shepherd and the Sheep will know His Voice, the One Church.

John 19: 25-27 So obviously clear Jesus gave His Mother to the Church this is Confirmed by His dying words on His Holy Cross which He bore for our shake.

John 20:19-23 Jesus after His Glorious Resurrection appears to the Apostles and instatutes the Sacrament of "Confession" and Penence. He gives them the ability to Forgive or retain sins. He Shared His Power.

Its getting late, and I need to get to the point. Theres plenty of more and I shall surely post more information about this as soon as I can, But I must get to what I need to say.


[color="#0000FF"][color="#2E8B57"][b]Do you believe our Protestant Brothers and Sisters are Willfully proposely letting themselves be blinded by these "So Catholic" references in their own Scripture, or do you believe its more mixed with ignorance and other elements that polute their sense of Scripture.[/b][/color][/color]

[size=4][b]Is it because of their Ignorance or do you believe they Fully Acknowlege this Willfully?[/b][/size]

Edited May 11, 2007 by White Knight

[Guest T-Bone]

It has it's roots in ignorance, but it is manifested by hubris.

[FatherG]

[quote name='T-Bone' post='1270991' date='May 11 2007, 03:52 AM']It has it's roots in ignorance, but it is manifested by hubris.[/quote]

And an absurdly conspiratorial view of history.

[Paddington]

[quote name='FatherG' post='1270995' date='May 11 2007, 08:06 AM']And an absurdly conspiratorial view of history.[/quote]

I don't know much about history. But, these are some things I know.

1. There is more than one way to interpret the See of Peter.
2. There is more than one way to interpret Roman Primacy.
3. There have been Popes in error.
4. There have been Popes later declared as anti-Popes. (Doesn't do much good to the dead followers of them.)
5. Ecumenical Councils and Local Councils didn't get labelled until....there were many dead followers of them.
6. There have been simultaneous "Popes." With Canonized Saints from simultaneous Papacies.
7. There are mixed messages to this day about how binding words from Popes are. "Well, an encyclical COULD be wrong..."

[Paddington]

8. Christ didn't go on and on talking about Rome or Petrine succession. Or the marks of Primacy.

[Paladin]

Well, to play Devil's advocate (no pun intended), here are a few common Protestant arguments:

RE: Peter
Jesus replied, "Blest are you, Simon son of Jonah! No mere man has revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. I for my part declare to you, you are "Rock," and on this rock I will build my church, and the jaws of death shall not prevail against it (Matthew 16:14-18). In Greek, the original language of the New Testament, Christ calls Peter "Rock" (masculine gender) then says "on this rock" (feminine gender) I will build my church. What is the rock on which the church is built? The usual Catholic interpretation is Peter, but the difference in gender makes this questionable. Then, just five verses ahead, Jesus reproves Peter with such severity that He calls him Satan. In the context itself then, it is equally possible that the "rock" upon which the church is founded is found in the statement that Peter made, You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.
...Peter certainly should have understood whether the church was founded on himself or on Christ, and he wrote that it was on Jesus Christ: For Scripture has it: "See, I am laying a cornerstone in Zion, an approved stone, and precious. He who puts his faith in it shall not be shaken." The stone is of value for you who have faith. For those without faith, it is rather, "A stone which the builders rejected that became a cornerstone." It is likewise "an obstacle and stumbling stone." Those who stumble and fall are the disbelievers in God's word; it belongs to their destiny to do so (1 Peter 2:6-8). Peter understood Christ to be the cornerstone, the foundation of the church, and was obviously referring to Him in this passage.
...Returning then, to Matthew 16:14-18, with this background from the Scriptures, it seems clear that The rock to which Jesus referred was not Peter himself, but his confession: You are the messiah, the Son of the living God.
Even if this were not true, and Peter were the rock upon which the church was founded, there is still no Biblical reason to think that Peter's authority was passed on to others, and that the popes are his successors. Neither is there reason to believe that this idea was accepted by the early church. In fact the idea of a "pope" developed a little bit at a time and it was only in 1870 that the infallibility of the pope became a dogma. Even then there was a strong opposition to the idea from within the Roman Catholic church itself. There is just no real foundation to the idea that one man, other than Jesus Christ Himself, has the authority over us that the Pope claims to have, although there are good reasons why he may want us to believe it. (source: [url="http://www.ovrlnd.com/cults/cornerstone.html)"]http://www.ovrlnd.com/cults/cornerstone.html)[/url]

RE: Mary
Was Mary blessed? YES!! Mary was chosen among women to be the vessel who bore the Messiah. The Bible honors Mary as the mother of Jesus and calls her "blessed...among women" (Luke 1:28) but not above women. What does this mean to us today? Nothing. No offense intended, but Mary's job is done.
Matthew 12:46-50 tells the story of Jesus speaking to the multitudes. In the middle of His sermon, He is interrupted and informed that His mother and brothers are outside of the building and that they wish to talk with Him. Does He stop speaking and go to them? No. His response was, "Who is my mother and who are my brothers?" Indicating the crowd He was addressing, He continued, "Here are my mother and my brothers, for whoever does the will of the Father in heaven is my brother, my sister and my mother."
Jesus made it clear to those He was teaching that Mary was no more or less a sinner in need of a Savior than anyone else in that room. Was He being disrespectful? No. He was making a point: We all have the responsibility of doing the will of the Father, no matter how great or small.
(source: [url="http://www.raptureready.com/rr-catholic.html)"]http://www.raptureready.com/rr-catholic.html)[/url]

RE: Confession
...But, it needs also to be said that the Catholic theologian would have done well to admit that it is a great leap one must take to get from John 20 to the Catholic practice of auricular confession, that is the confession of sins ad auriculam, into the ear, of a priest, a confession Catholics regard as a sacrament and as a system of penitence by which justification is preserved and renewed. The Baltimore Catechism defined Confession this way: "Confession is the telling of our sins to an authorized priest for the purpose of obtaining forgiveness."
The practice rests on the Roman Catholic doctrine of the priesthood. The argument runs like this: when Jesus was on earth he forgave sins; this power he bestowed on his apostles and on their legitimate successors, namely Roman Catholic priests (here is where John 20:23 becomes so important); this power to forgive sins is not merely the power of preaching the gospel, of speaking the Word of God, as the Reformers understood it, but the actual power to remit sins, so that the priestly act of absolution is a real judicial act; that being so, the judicial act requires a knowledge of the facts of the case, and, therefore, the priest must be informed of those facts, hence private confession into the ear of the priest.
(source: [url="http://www.faithtacoma.org/sermons/Romancath/RC05.html)"]http://www.faithtacoma.org/sermons/Romancath/RC05.html)[/url]

[Katholikos]

As Luther said, "Scripture, like wax noses, can be twisted to fit" (any doctrine the human mind is capable of inventing).

The thousands upon thousands of founders of Protestant sects "discovered" one or more novel, never before discovered, Christian doctrines in the Scriptures. They attracted a group of followers who were taught these new "discoveries," this novel point of view, this new set of beliefs, and the scriptures were twisted or selected to "prove" this POV. It's a combination of ignorance of historical Christianity and a belief that the Bible -- as each individual interprets it -- is the Word of God, and that every person is "led by the Holy Spirit to all truth" -- no matter how bizarre that "truth" is in the light of Original Christianity as taught by the Apostles.

Protestant clergyman John Henry Newman set out to prove that his (Anglican) church was right and that Catholicism was wrong. After several years of intense study, he wrote, [b]"To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant . . . And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this." [/b]Then, when he had finished writing [i]An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine,[/i] he put down his pen called a priest, and became a Catholic.

The choice is among thousands of churches founded on the opinions of mere men in or after the 16th century -- most likely in the 19th and 20th -- and the One True Church founded by Jesus Christ on the Rock of Peter in A.D. 33. Believe the doctrines of ordinary men or the doctrines of the Apostles -- commissioned and taught by Christ Himself -- who were made these promises:

1. Christ Himself would remain with them (and their successors) ALWAYS, until the end of time (Mt 28:20 KJV).

2. The Holy Spirit would be with them (and their successors) to guide them to all truth ALWAYS (John 14, 15, 16).

Likos

[thessalonian]

Paddington:


"I don't know much about history. But, these are some things I know.


1. There is more than one way to interpret the See of Peter."



There is more than one way to interpret every passage in the Bible it seems. Are they all of equal legitimacy? Clearly not.

"2. There is more than one way to interpret Roman Primacy."

How many true ways are there?

"3. There have been Popes in error."

By whose standards? Someone who is wrong on #1? What kind of error are we talking about? Did they spread that error to the whole Church.

"4. There have been Popes later declared as anti-Popes. (Doesn't do much good to the dead followers of them.)"

An anti-pope was never a pope. There may have been some confusion in this regard but God will sort out the confuesed culpability.

"5. Ecumenical Councils and Local Councils didn't get labelled until....there were many dead followers of them."

The word trinity did not get coined until some of the believers in it's concepts were long dead. So what. Does that mean it wasn't true before then? Did God at that instance become a trinity? You quite clealy don't know about and don't understand what is called devolopement of doctrine.

"6. There have been simultaneous "Popes." With Canonized Saints from simultaneous Papacies."

Nope. There have never been two popes at the same time. Two may have claimed to be Pope but at least one of them was not. I don't quite understand your second sentence. Your objections show a lack of real study in these matters, simply parroting the objections you have read from others.

"7. There are mixed messages to this day about how binding words from Popes are. "Well, an encyclical COULD be wrong..." "

Who are you quoting? Not me, that is for sure.
Quit honestly I don't know of any encyclicals that are wrong and I have read alot of them.. You make a false conclusion here that because something is not infallible that it is wrong or can be wrong or lacks authority. Further it is not a full document that is infallible but that part which specifically declares a doctrine to be dogma. Your posting does not demonstate real legitimate objections to the Catholic faith, but an ignorance that you seem to be using as an excuse to keep you out of the fullness of the truth. I hope you will bone up a bit and do some study. Present your evidence so that we know that these questions you have are more than just parroting Norm Geisler or William Webster or James White. It's easy to make up lists like this from the outside out of ignorance. Are you interested in getting an education or just taking shots.

Edited May 11, 2007 by thessalonian

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1271099' date='May 11 2007, 10:28 AM']8. Christ didn't go on and on talking about Rome or Petrine succession. Or the marks of Primacy.[/quote]

Neither does the Catholic Church as a matter of fact. It is rare that I hear such a sermon. It is rare that I hear a pope make sermons about how he is the successor of Peter. It is what it is. People don't accept it because of rebellion. They don't like authority, even God given.

[Paddington]

Edit: Nevermind.

Thessalonian,

I do need to learn more. I plan on it.

Paddington

Edited May 11, 2007 by Paddington

[Paddington]

Nevermind

Edited May 11, 2007 by Paddington

[Paddington]

Thessalonian,

People did not know at the time of early Councils if they were to end up as binding or "local." Source = Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church. That is an issue that I raised and then you said something about the Trinity. It didn't follow. It kinda looked like it did. My point was along the lines of a Christian saying "hey there is a Council. Let's believe everything it says. They are all the same, right?" And then later on....no, they are not all the same. Also, anti-Popes had to have mislead people. Otherwise, they would not be declared an anti-Pope. God should judge people who are mislead kindly. But, it sounds weird when Catholics talk about how God promised to always have truth from the Holy Spirit in that context. God sorting it all out sounds more better with Protestantism or Eastern Orthodoxy to me.

Here is a link that I posted here before. Posters gave assertions and didn't address the real difficulties for Roman Catholics in this link. (Unless sb addressed it during Lent. But, there were not answers for at least a week or two prior. I also tried the search function with no good result.) If you can address the real difficulties in this link, then I will be impressed. I also will read it very carefully and consider what you say.

[url="http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idCategory=34&idsub=127&id=2435"]http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp...127&id=2435[/url]

As far as "an encyclical COULD be wrong..." I hear that from Catholics. Don't you?
In Transmundane Lane there is a thread with a good picture of the confusion on EENS.

Here is a very relevant book that I read. It is a little like Newman's Development, which I also read.

[url="http://www.americamagazine.org/BookReview.cfm?articleTypeID=31&textID=4139&issueID=528"]http://www.americamagazine.org/BookReview....amp;issueID=528[/url]

The Roman Catholic Church has thrown out certain indulgences and saint stories too. That is a credibility issue to me, but not to you.

And has gotten people confused over whether the Bible is perfect. This website could show you some on that topic.

www.catholicintl.com

I'm too tired now. I will agree with anybody who thinks I should learn more.
I think learning Catholicism should primarily be from Catholic sources. I've put effort in there and plan on more. I would listen to Protestants too. But, the anti-Catholics are not that good. And they have a bad habit of saying something about "Rome's false gospel" like once per page.

I have to go now.

Paddington

[Akalyte]

Protestantism:


Numbers 16


1 And behold Core the son of Isaar, the son of Caath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiron the sons of Eliab, and Hon the son of Pheleth of the children of Ruben, 2 Rose up against Moses, and with them two hundred and fifty others of the children of Israel, leading men of the synagogue, and who in the time of assembly were called by name. 3 And when they had stood up against Moses and Aaron, they said: Let it be enough for you, that all the multitude consisteth of holy ones, and the Lord is among them: Why lift you up yourselves above the people of the Lord? 4 When Moses heard this, he fell flat on his face: 5 And speaking to Core and all the multitude, he said: In the morning the Lord will make known who belong to him, and the holy he will join to himself: and whom he shall choose, they shall approach to him.

6 Do this therefore: Take every man of you your censers, thou Core, and all thy company. 7 And putting fire in them tomorrow, put incense upon it before the Lord: and whomsoever he shall choose, the same shall be holy: you take too much upon you, ye sons of Levi. 8 And he said again to Core: Hear ye sons of Levi. 9 Is it a small thing unto you, that the God of Israel hath spared you from all the people, and joined you to himself, that you should serve him in the service of the tabernacle, and should stand before the congregation of the people, and should minister to him? 10 Did he therefore make thee and all thy brethren the sons of Levi to approach unto him, that you should challenge to yourselves the priesthood also,

11 And that all thy company should stand against the Lord? for what is Aaron that you murmur against him? 12 Then Moses sent to call Dathan and Abiron the sons of Eliab. But they answered: We will not come. 13 Is it a small matter to thee, that thou hast brought us out of a land that flowed with milk and honey, to kill us in the desert, except thou rule also like a lord over us? 14 Thou best brought us indeed into a land that floweth with rivers of milk and honey, and hast given us possessions of fields and vineyards; wilt thou also pull out our eyes? We will not come. 15 Moses therefore being very angry, raid to the Lord: Respect not their sacrifices: thou knowest that I have not taken of them so much as a young ass at any time, nor have injured any of them.

16 And he said to Core: Do thou and thy congregation stand apart before the Lord tomorrow, and Aaron apart. 17 Take every one of you censers, and put incense upon them, offering to the Lord two hundred and fifty censers: let Aaron also hold his censer. 18 When they had done this, Moses and Aaron standing, 19 And had drawn up all the multitude against them to the door of the tabernacle, the glory of the Lord appeared to them all. 20 And the Lord speaking to Moses and Aaron, said:

21 Separate yourselves from among this congregation, that I may presently destroy them. 22 They fell flat on their face, and said: O most mighty, the God of the spirits of all flesh, for one man's sin shall thy wrath rage against all? 23 And the Lord said to Moses: 24 Command the whole people to separate themselves from the tents of Core and Dathan and Abiron. 25 And Moses arose, and went to Dathan and Abiron: and the ancients of Israel following him


26 He said to the multitude: Depart from the tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest you be involved in their sins. 27 And when they were departed from their tents round about, Dathan and Abiron coming out stood in the entry of their pavilions with their wives and children, and all the people. 28 And Moses said: By this you shall know that the Lord hath sent me to do all things that you see, and that I have not forged them of my own head: 29 If these men die the common death of men, and if they be visited with a plague, wherewith others also are wont to be visited, the Lord did not send me. 30 But if the Lord do a new thing, and the earth opening her mouth swallow them down, and all things that belong to them, and they go down alive into hell, you shall know that they have blasphemed the Lord.

31 And immediately as he had made an end of speaking, the earth broke asunder under their feet: 32 And opening her mouth, devoured them with their tents and all their substance. 33 And they went down alive into hell the ground closing upon them, and they perished from among the people. 34 But all Israel, that was standing round about, fled at the cry of them that were perishing: saying: Lest perhaps the earth swallow us up also. 35 And a fire coming out from the Lord, destroyed the two hundred and fifty men that offered the incense.


36 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 37 Command Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest to take up the censers that lie in the burning, and to scatter the fire of one side and the other: because they are sanctified 38 In the deaths of the sinners: and let him beat them into plates, and fasten them to the altar, because incense hath been offered in them to the Lord, and they are sanctified, that the children of Israel may see them for a sign and a memorial. 39 Then Eleazar the priest took the brazen censers, wherein they had offered, whom the burning fire had devoured, and beat them into plates, fastening them to the altar: 40 That the children of Israel might have for the time to come wherewith they should be admonished, that no stranger or any one that is not of seed of Aaron should come near to offer incense to the Lord, lest he should suffer as Core suffered, and all his congregation, according as the Lord spoke to Moses.

41 The following day all the multitude of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and Aaron, saying: You have killed the people of the Lord. 42 And when there arose a sedition, and the tumult increased, 43 Moses and Aaron fled to the tabernacle of the covenant. And when the were gone into it, the cloud covered it, and the glory of the Lord appeared. 44 And the Lord said to Moses: 45 Get you out from the midst of this multitude, this moment will I destroy them. And as they were lying on the ground,

46 Moses said to Aaron: Take the censer, and putting fire in it from the altar, put incense upon it, and go quickly to the people to pray for them: for already wrath is gone out from the Lord, and the plague rageth. 47 When Aaron had done this, and had run to the midst of the multitude which the burning fire was now destroying, he offered the incense: 48 And standing between the dead and the living, he prayed for the people, and the plague ceased. 49 And the number of them that were slain was fourteen thousand and seven hundred men, besides them that had perished in the sedition of Core. 50 And Aaron returned to Moses to the door of the tabernacle of the covenant after the destruction was over.

Edited May 12, 2007 by Akalyte

[Paddington]

I wondered if I would've been reamed already. I guess not. But, I hope that people see my words primarily as they relate to this:

1. Protestants have heard of the Roman Catholic Church.
2. Many are familar with some Bible quotes that Catholic apologists use against Protestants.
3. It is wrong to judge their conscience.

I've been told that Catholics are not allowed to even judge Hitler. He is a candidate for Most Evil Ever. And then killed himself. That is why he belongs in those conversations. My good Catholic friend told me that Catholics are not allowed to judge his eternal state. She was very sharp. With strong Catholic influence her whole life. She kept telling me that it is un-Catholic to EVER judge.

[thessalonian]

Paddington,

I am reading and reflecting on your article as time permits. I have some thoughts and will respond early next week. I appreciate your willingness to discuss these matters in a reasonable way. Stay tuned.