Conversation with a Catholic Webmaster, Part II
Continuing from an earlier post I have had more conversations with a Catholic webmaster who challenged me and wanted to tout catholic doctrine above all others. Here is the email thread:
So after many replies John replied to me:
I suggest you read [the] book THE BIBLICAL BASIS FOR THE PAPACY for starters, in which you will learn that ALL of the early Church Fathers held to the Catholic view of the Papacy. And in [the] latest book THE BIBLICAL BASIS FOR TRADITION which came out last week, [There is] an entire chapter on the Fathers with hundreds of quotes from them proving historically that they not only believed in the papacy and the primacy of the Roman Church, but also apostolic succession, baptismal regeneration, the sacrifice of the Mass, the real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, oral apostolic Tradition, intercessory prayer, Purgatory, and a whole host of other Catholic doctrines which would force any honest non-Catholic to reconsider his position. There are simply hundreds upon hundreds of quotes that prove the truth of the Catholic Faith, not to mention the historical continuity of apostolic succession from Peter to Benedict XVI.
Your quotations below have nothing to do with the canon of Scripture. They address only the nature of Scripture. We both agree Scripture is inspired, that it is the Word of God, etc. But how do we know what the Scriptures are? Again, any honest person with a basic concept of logic must admit that if there is no inspired table of contents in the Bible, then an authority outside the Bible must have determined the contents. Even Martin Luther admitted the same. But if the canon is infallible, then the Church who determined it must also be infallible because an effect can never be greater than its cause. This is a principle of logic with which you must agree. The historical fact is that Pope Damasus first determined the canon of Scripture at the council of Rome in 382 A.D., followed by councils at Hippo and Carthage.
None of this was debated until Protestantism came along - your religion - 1600 years after Christ ascended into heaven. I pray that you go back and study history, for those who steep themselves in the historical facts cease to be Protestant. They become Catholic. The Catholic Church is the only true Church - the only ark of salvation.
God bless.
John S.
So I replied...
John...
Thanks for your reply. This discussion is very good indeed and I appreciate your civility and demeanor in what in the past with other Catholics has been a very heated discussion. As neither Protestant or Catholic (I don't subscribe to any religion at all as I am a Follower of The Way which predates both Catholics and Protestants) I tend to view things using a strict scriptural approach. I appreciate the information that you offer, but it is unnecessary. I will never reconsider my position because of what the Bible (which for the sake of our discussion has been helped by the Catholic cause) says directly. The catholic faith crumbles to dust under the words of the same Bible you "assembled". The church fathers were men and I choose to follow God first. I challenge you to read these scriptures and show me "where I am wrong" because if not you are only clinging to a dead dogma where the truth is sparse and populated with lies.
Since you don't read "long emails" even though I am to read your books... I offer this... Many early church fathers said things that contradict Catholic doctrine. Clement of Alexandria is one that many Catholics use only part of what he said. In regards to Communion Clement said:
“But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes–the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food- that is, the Lord Jesus–that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified…”
He also said:
“But we are God-taught, and glory in the name of Christ. How then are we not to regard the apostle as attaching this sense to the milk of the babes? And if we who preside over the Churches are shepherds after the image of the good Shepherd, and you the sheep, are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock?… Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; ” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.”
I suggest that you read this link for more information: http://onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/
Also, as my last point to you. Peter was not the Apostle to Rome or the Gentiles at all. In the canon of "your scripture" Galatians 2:7-8 says:
7 On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. 8 For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles.
Also... Romans 15:16
15 I have written you quite boldly on some points, as if to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me 16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.
And... 2 Timothy 4:9-11 (While he was in prison in Rome)
9 Do your best to come to me quickly, 10 for Demas, because he loved this world, has deserted me and has gone to Thessalonica. Crescens has gone to Galatia, and Titus to Dalmatia. 11 Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, because he is helpful to me in my ministry.
In Romans 16 Paul greets 28 people at the Church of Rome and he didn't mention Peter.
In Acts 28:13-31 Paul goes to Rome and calls the Jewish elders their together and they didn't hear of him or know the message he brought. Peter and Paul knew each other so why wouldn't these Jews know of Paul via Peter? they mostly rejected Paul's message by the way.
Where was Peter the apostle of Christ? At the times the Catholics believe Peter was in Rome, The Bible clearly shows that he was elsewhere. The evidence is abundant and conclusive. By paying attention to God’s own words, no one need be deceived. Peter was NEVER the Bishop of Rome!
Near 45 A.D., we find Peter being cast into prison at Jerusalem (Acts 12:3, 4). In 49 A.D., he was still in Jerusalem, this time attending the Jerusalem Council. About 51 A.D., he was in Antioch of Syria where he got into differences with Paul because he wouldn’t sit or eat with Gentiles. Strange that the "Roman bishop" would have nothing to do with Gentiles in 51 A.D.! Later in about 66 A.D., we find him in the city of Babylon among the Jews (I Pet. 5:13). Remember that Peter was the Apostle to the CIRCUMCISED. Why was he in Babylon? Because history shows that there were as many Jews in the Mesopotamian areas in Christ’s time as there were in Palestine. It is no wonder we find him in the East. Perhaps this is the reason why scholars say Peter’s writings are strongly Aramaic in flavor, the type of Aramaic spoken in Babylon. Why of course! Peter was used to their eastern dialect.
At the times the Catholics believe Peter was in Rome, The Bible clearly shows he was elsewhere. As previously mentioned there are many supposed historical accounts of Peter in Rome but none of them are first hand accounts and should not be put above the many accounts of The Bible. Apostolic succession from the Apostle Peter is impossible and any logical person would deduce from this that if the Apostle Peter who walked with Jesus was never in Rome then the succession of the popes is untrue. Unless there was another Simon there... If you want more information I can provide that.
If the catholic church treasures it's faith it should read the Bible it "assembled" and follow it. Too many pollutions of the church have happened over the years. Too many popes were not only in sin, but were down right evil. Jesus Christ cannot and never will live in ANYTHING like this. There are many people who are Catholic who have no idea what their faith is about. I have read your catechism and many documents and resources and of course the Bible and it not only refutes Catholicism, but it also refutes many attributes of Protestantism as well. My quest is to share the Bible as it is written to the world and that through His Word we get to know the essence of Christ.
Have a very blessed day!
What Is The Bible Truth?
This was weeks ago and I haven't heard from him since....
So after many replies John replied to me:
I suggest you read [the] book THE BIBLICAL BASIS FOR THE PAPACY for starters, in which you will learn that ALL of the early Church Fathers held to the Catholic view of the Papacy. And in [the] latest book THE BIBLICAL BASIS FOR TRADITION which came out last week, [There is] an entire chapter on the Fathers with hundreds of quotes from them proving historically that they not only believed in the papacy and the primacy of the Roman Church, but also apostolic succession, baptismal regeneration, the sacrifice of the Mass, the real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, oral apostolic Tradition, intercessory prayer, Purgatory, and a whole host of other Catholic doctrines which would force any honest non-Catholic to reconsider his position. There are simply hundreds upon hundreds of quotes that prove the truth of the Catholic Faith, not to mention the historical continuity of apostolic succession from Peter to Benedict XVI.
Your quotations below have nothing to do with the canon of Scripture. They address only the nature of Scripture. We both agree Scripture is inspired, that it is the Word of God, etc. But how do we know what the Scriptures are? Again, any honest person with a basic concept of logic must admit that if there is no inspired table of contents in the Bible, then an authority outside the Bible must have determined the contents. Even Martin Luther admitted the same. But if the canon is infallible, then the Church who determined it must also be infallible because an effect can never be greater than its cause. This is a principle of logic with which you must agree. The historical fact is that Pope Damasus first determined the canon of Scripture at the council of Rome in 382 A.D., followed by councils at Hippo and Carthage.
None of this was debated until Protestantism came along - your religion - 1600 years after Christ ascended into heaven. I pray that you go back and study history, for those who steep themselves in the historical facts cease to be Protestant. They become Catholic. The Catholic Church is the only true Church - the only ark of salvation.
God bless.
John S.
So I replied...
John...
Thanks for your reply. This discussion is very good indeed and I appreciate your civility and demeanor in what in the past with other Catholics has been a very heated discussion. As neither Protestant or Catholic (I don't subscribe to any religion at all as I am a Follower of The Way which predates both Catholics and Protestants) I tend to view things using a strict scriptural approach. I appreciate the information that you offer, but it is unnecessary. I will never reconsider my position because of what the Bible (which for the sake of our discussion has been helped by the Catholic cause) says directly. The catholic faith crumbles to dust under the words of the same Bible you "assembled". The church fathers were men and I choose to follow God first. I challenge you to read these scriptures and show me "where I am wrong" because if not you are only clinging to a dead dogma where the truth is sparse and populated with lies.
Since you don't read "long emails" even though I am to read your books... I offer this... Many early church fathers said things that contradict Catholic doctrine. Clement of Alexandria is one that many Catholics use only part of what he said. In regards to Communion Clement said:
“But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes–the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food- that is, the Lord Jesus–that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified…”
He also said:
“But we are God-taught, and glory in the name of Christ. How then are we not to regard the apostle as attaching this sense to the milk of the babes? And if we who preside over the Churches are shepherds after the image of the good Shepherd, and you the sheep, are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock?… Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; ” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.”
I suggest that you read this link for more information: http://onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/
Also, as my last point to you. Peter was not the Apostle to Rome or the Gentiles at all. In the canon of "your scripture" Galatians 2:7-8 says:
7 On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. 8 For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles.
Also... Romans 15:16
15 I have written you quite boldly on some points, as if to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me 16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.
And... 2 Timothy 4:9-11 (While he was in prison in Rome)
9 Do your best to come to me quickly, 10 for Demas, because he loved this world, has deserted me and has gone to Thessalonica. Crescens has gone to Galatia, and Titus to Dalmatia. 11 Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, because he is helpful to me in my ministry.
In Romans 16 Paul greets 28 people at the Church of Rome and he didn't mention Peter.
In Acts 28:13-31 Paul goes to Rome and calls the Jewish elders their together and they didn't hear of him or know the message he brought. Peter and Paul knew each other so why wouldn't these Jews know of Paul via Peter? they mostly rejected Paul's message by the way.
Where was Peter the apostle of Christ? At the times the Catholics believe Peter was in Rome, The Bible clearly shows that he was elsewhere. The evidence is abundant and conclusive. By paying attention to God’s own words, no one need be deceived. Peter was NEVER the Bishop of Rome!
Near 45 A.D., we find Peter being cast into prison at Jerusalem (Acts 12:3, 4). In 49 A.D., he was still in Jerusalem, this time attending the Jerusalem Council. About 51 A.D., he was in Antioch of Syria where he got into differences with Paul because he wouldn’t sit or eat with Gentiles. Strange that the "Roman bishop" would have nothing to do with Gentiles in 51 A.D.! Later in about 66 A.D., we find him in the city of Babylon among the Jews (I Pet. 5:13). Remember that Peter was the Apostle to the CIRCUMCISED. Why was he in Babylon? Because history shows that there were as many Jews in the Mesopotamian areas in Christ’s time as there were in Palestine. It is no wonder we find him in the East. Perhaps this is the reason why scholars say Peter’s writings are strongly Aramaic in flavor, the type of Aramaic spoken in Babylon. Why of course! Peter was used to their eastern dialect.
At the times the Catholics believe Peter was in Rome, The Bible clearly shows he was elsewhere. As previously mentioned there are many supposed historical accounts of Peter in Rome but none of them are first hand accounts and should not be put above the many accounts of The Bible. Apostolic succession from the Apostle Peter is impossible and any logical person would deduce from this that if the Apostle Peter who walked with Jesus was never in Rome then the succession of the popes is untrue. Unless there was another Simon there... If you want more information I can provide that.
If the catholic church treasures it's faith it should read the Bible it "assembled" and follow it. Too many pollutions of the church have happened over the years. Too many popes were not only in sin, but were down right evil. Jesus Christ cannot and never will live in ANYTHING like this. There are many people who are Catholic who have no idea what their faith is about. I have read your catechism and many documents and resources and of course the Bible and it not only refutes Catholicism, but it also refutes many attributes of Protestantism as well. My quest is to share the Bible as it is written to the world and that through His Word we get to know the essence of Christ.
Have a very blessed day!
What Is The Bible Truth?
This was weeks ago and I haven't heard from him since....
Comments
Post a Comment