He "defys any Catholic"

How would you answer this person? I don’t know how to answer this and also just don’t know whereabouts to start.

I have mostly just commented on answers up to this point, but I want to address some things said in other answers/comments. I defy any Catholic to show where in the Bible authority is established for the Catholic church and for Peter as the first Pope without using Matthew 16:15-18.

A typical Catholic reading of that passage mixes two Greek words to create a false church structure. Christ told Peter that He would establish His church on the rock of Peter’s confession of Him as Christ, not on Peter himself. Peter is “petros”, a maculine noun meaning “stone”. Jesus told “petros” (actually, since “Peter” is the direct object of that sentence, the accusative form of this masculine noun would read “petron”) that He would build his church on this “petra”, a femine noun meaning “large rock, cliff, or ledge”. The words are completely different genders in the original text. This passage does not make Peter a pope. He was, instead, an elder in a congregation of the 1st century church as a reading of the letters he wrote will show.

Even a quick reading of 1st century practices during the assembly in Acts, 1 Corinthians, etc… and of the organizational structure of the church as discussed in Timothy and Titus reveal that Catholicism is a drastic departure from this example and Biblical standard.

The Catholic church is not the original church. It is an apostate branch of the church as described in scripture that developed over time as an abandonment of congregational autonomy and the introduction of traditions that carried the weight of scripture took hold. Numerous Christian movements today are trying to return to the New Testament example of God’s church (the church of Christ where I attend is an example), and some are having more success than others as millenia old Catholic (and even Protestant) traditions and social sensitivities cloud an effort to return to pure Bible teaching.

I challenge any reader to prove through scripture alone that the Catholic church is the one church established by God. I will append this answer as necessary to respond.

The quote came from this page:
answerbag.com/a_view.php/14610

i don’t have all the answers. all i can say is that there is no distinction *in meaning, *regarding the petros and petra thing. they both mean “large stone.”

the greek word for “small stone” is “lithos”. (it was used in Matt4:3 when the devil tempts Jesus to change stones/small rocks into stone; it was also used in John10:31, when jews picked up stones to pelt Jesus with, and in (hehe) 1Peter2:5, where St. Peter calls Christians “living stones.”)

besides, as Jesus was addressing Peter the whole passage, it would be strange in the least that He should end it by saying, “and I’m building the Church on Me.”

that’s all i can say for now. i’m not sure this would be enough to convice the guy; at least i hope it helped you.

we’ll be praying.

“I defy any Catholic to show where in the Bible authority is established for the Catholic church and for Peter as the first Pope without using Matthew 16:15-18.”

I defy any pilot to fly without using an aircraft.http://forums.catholic.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Read Acts, where Peter exercises his leadership (2,14-41) or where he sets aside the Dietary Laws of Moses (Chapter 10.)

Read the First Epistle of Clement – where he tells the Corinthians they must take back the bishop and priests they expelled. At that time, the Apostle John was still living, and not far from there. But it was Clement who sat in Peter’s chair.

[quote=vern humphrey]“I defy any Catholic to show where in the Bible authority is established for the Catholic church and for Peter as the first Pope without using Matthew 16:15-18.”

I defy any pilot to fly without using an aircraft.http://forums.catholic.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[/quote]

LOL, good one!!!:thumbsup:

The 21st chapter of John. Who is being given authority in that chapter to shepherd Jesus’ sheep?

Here are some additional verses:

Luke 22:31-32, John 21:15-17, Matt 10:2-4, Mark 3:14-19, Luke 6:13-16, Gal 1:17-19, Acts 1:15-16, Acts 2:14, Acts 2:37-38, Acts 3:4,6,7, Acts 3:11-12, Acts 4:7-8, Acts 5:3, Acts 5:15, Acts 5:29, Acts 9:31-32, Acts 12:5, Acts 15:6-7

First, the anti-Catholic literature is jammed with – it is drowning in – artsy-craftsy “Greek scholarship” like this. The writer here wouldn’t know an accusative form if he fell over one.

It’s not accusative. It’s predicate nominative, exactly the same thing it is in English.

Second, should we bother doing the work of looking for non-Matthew 16:18 material, or is this guy so in love with hating Catholicism that he can’t tell “up” from “down”?

[quote=Shinobu]How would you answer this person? I don’t know how to answer this and also just don’t know whereabouts to start.

I have mostly just commented on answers up to this point, but I want to address some things said in other answers/comments. I defy any Catholic to show where in the Bible authority is established for the Catholic church and for Peter as the first Pope without using Matthew 16:15-18.

A typical Catholic reading of that passage mixes two Greek words to create a false church structure. Christ told Peter that He would establish His church on the rock of Peter’s confession of Him as Christ, not on Peter himself. Peter is “petros”, a maculine noun meaning “stone”. Jesus told “petros” (actually, since “Peter” is the direct object of that sentence, the accusative form of this masculine noun would read “petron”) that He would build his church on this “petra”, a femine noun meaning “large rock, cliff, or ledge”. The words are completely different genders in the original text. This passage does not make Peter a pope. He was, instead, an elder in a congregation of the 1st century church as a reading of the letters he wrote will show.

Even a quick reading of 1st century practices during the assembly in Acts, 1 Corinthians, etc… and of the organizational structure of the church as discussed in Timothy and Titus reveal that Catholicism is a drastic departure from this example and Biblical standard.

The Catholic church is not the original church. It is an apostate branch of the church as described in scripture that developed over time as an abandonment of congregational autonomy and the introduction of traditions that carried the weight of scripture took hold. Numerous Christian movements today are trying to return to the New Testament example of God’s church (the church of Christ where I attend is an example), and some are having more success than others as millenia old Catholic (and even Protestant) traditions and social sensitivities cloud an effort to return to pure Bible teaching.

I challenge any reader to prove through scripture alone that the Catholic church is the one church established by God. I will append this answer as necessary to respond.

The quote came from this page:
answerbag.com/a_view.php/14610
[/quote]

Hello Shinobu,

This destinction is not very good. The reason for the change in gender is because in the Greek society you would not name a man with a feminine name, like petra. So, Matthew changed it to the masculine form of the same word.

It is inconsequential though because Christ did not speak in Greek. It is understood by a large majority of scholars that Christ spoke in Aramaic. In the Aramaic language there is no destinction in gender between masculine and feminine. It would be Kephas and kephas in Aramaic. In fact in other places in the Greek NT they actually use this term. For example, in John 1;42 Jesus calls him kephas, and then it says "which is interpreted petros. Kepha translates as Rock. So, here we see proof that Christ spoke in Aramaic, from the bible. This name is also shown in some Galatians2 3 times, and in Corinthians 4 times in Corinth.1, Corinth.3, Corinth.5, Corinth.9, and Corinth.15. So, it is shown quite often that Christ actually spoke in Aramaic. He also uses Aramaic in Matt.27;46 where he cries from the cross.

Second, it is understood that the keys that Christ gives to Peter in Matt.16 represent authority. You can see this by looking back in Isaiah 22;15-26. It speaks of God taking the keys of the house of David and giving them to Shebna. He says that he will open and shut, and what he has opened no one shall shut. This shows the authority that is handed with the keys. You can see that Matt 16 is very similar and it shows Christ giving the keys of heaven to Peter. And he said what you shall bind shall be bound in heaven and what you shall loose shall be loosed in heaven. This authority is only given to Peter, as can be proved from the Greek if needed.

Later in chapter 18 Christ gives all the apostles the authority to bind and to loose, but he does not give them the keys to heaven, which were given to Peter alone.

You can also see that from the begining, the Church of Rome was understood to be the head of all church’s. For example, Irenaeus in the middle of the second century said that all church’s should agree with the church of Rome because of its pre-eminent authority.[Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 3 Chapter 3.]

I defy any sola scripturian to show me in the bible what Christians did for authority during the first few hundred years after Christ’s ascension into Heaven when no bible even existed.

[quote=BibleReader]First, the anti-Catholic literature is jammed with – it is drowning in – artsy-craftsy “Greek scholarship” like this. The writer here wouldn’t know an accusative form if he fell over one.

It’s not accusative. It’s predicate nominative, exactly the same thing it is in English.

Second, should we bother doing the work of looking for non-Matthew 16:18 material, or is this guy so in love with hating Catholicism that he can’t tell “up” from “down”?
[/quote]

That is true, the case for it would be the same as the subject of the sentence, which is thou.

Christ told Peter that He would establish His church on the rock of Peter’s confession of Him as Christ, not on Peter himself. Peter is “petros”, a maculine noun meaning “stone”. Jesus told “petros” (actually, since “Peter” is the direct object of that sentence, the accusative form of this masculine noun would read “petron”) that He would build his church on this “petra”, a femine noun meaning “large rock, cliff, or ledge”. The words are completely different genders in the original text.

In Koine Greek, the language the Bible was written in, petra and *petros *were synonymous with each other. This distinction between definitions of the two words is more consistent with the Attic dialect, which is improper to impress upon the Koine. Point him to D.A. Carson’s Expositor’s Bible Commentary, which delineates this point very well. Also point out that that D.A. Carson is a respected Evangelical Bible scholar.:wink:

He said: "I have mostly just commented on answers up to this point, but I want to address some things said in other answers/comments. I defy any Catholic to show where in the Bible authority is established for the Catholic church and for Peter as the first Pope without using Matthew 16:15-18."
MT 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

Jesus transfered the authority that He was given by the Father to the Apostles!

JN 20:21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”

He said: "A typical Catholic reading of that passage (Matt 16:18) mixes two Greek words to create a false church structure. Christ told Peter that He would establish His church on the rock of Peter’s confession of Him as Christ, not on Peter himself. "

An elementary evaluation of the verse shows clearly that Peter is the rock that Jesus is refering to when he says, “on this rock I will build my church.” Let’s just look at the entire verse…

Matt 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

The subject of the sentence is Peter or Kephas/Rock. Immediately after Jesus changes Simons name to Peter, he says “and on this rock I will build my church…” We learn in 2nd grade that the noun "rock" must refer to the subject of the sentence…"Peter".

If I were you I would not answer any more of his questions until he explains to you how and why he is attaching Peter’s confession of faith from verse 16 as the subject of the noun from verse 18. He is the one with some explaining to do.

Thank you for the answers! I’m sorry that I posted this in the wrong forum.

[quote=Chris Jacobsen]Here are some additional verses:

Luke 22:31-32
[/quote]

These verses are the most compelling, IMHO:
**

31

And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren. [font=Arial]**[/font]

This particular “ministry” is recognized by popes today. For example, from Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren…

[font=Arial][size=2][/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=2]
[/size][/font]

[quote=Shinobu]How would you answer this person? I don’t know how to answer this and also just don’t know whereabouts to start.

The quote came from this page:
answerbag.com/a_view.php/14610

[/quote]

The original quote said:

I challenge any reader to prove through scripture alone that the Catholic church is the one church established by God.

Quiet frankly, the Bible does not use the word Pope or the title Bishop of Rome. However, one only needs to look at how the Bible portrays Peter to know that he was set above the other Apostles. Christ gave Peter alone the keys to the kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 16:19). He gave all the Apostles the power to bind and to loose (Matthew 18:18); but Peter alone held the keys. Look at John 21:15-17. Christ directed Peter to tend His sheep after He had already been resurrected. Now look at Acts 15. This was the first Church council (Council of Jerusalem). All the Church Apostles and presbyters were discussing whether gentiles had to follow the Law of Moses. Peter stood up and addressed the group and after he spoke they fell silent and the decision was made. Galatians 1:18-19 shows that Paul went to see Peter after his conversion. One should notice that Peter’s name always heads the list of Apostles: Matthew 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13, Luke 9:32, Mark 16:7. Peter spoke FOR the Apostles: Matthew 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 8:45, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69. Peter’s name is mentioned 195 times, more than all the rest of the Apostles combined. Coincidence? I think not. On top of all this, the early Church Fathers recognized Peter (and his successors) as the head. In 80 AD, the Church of Corinth deposed its lawful leaders and who was called in? Hmm… Could it have been St. John the Apostle who was still alive at the time and nearby (in Ephesus)? Yes, it could have been, but it wasn’t. It was instead Pope Clement I who was further away (in Rome) whom the Church turned to.

Besides the Bible, why is it that the author of the original question refuses to believe that other sources prove beyond doubt the answer to his question? I would wager that the reason is he knows well that given the testimony by those who knew the actual Apostles and studied under them would leave him worshipping in the wrong church. Certainly, he is not one of those that believe that if it isn’t in the Bible it isn’t true. That is just plain ignorant. Does he look to the Bible when deciding what type of oil to put in his car too? Wish him luck for me; he’s going to need it.:wink:

[quote=Shinobu]Thank you for the answers! I’m sorry that I posted this in the wrong forum.
[/quote]

you’re welcome! we’re still praying for you.

If you read the first half of Acts, you can see Peters authority in every chapter. It is him that is always speaking and him, whose shadow the people want to pass over the sick. It is him that decides they should pick a successor to Judas. It Peter who stood up and decided that the gentiles did not need to be circumcised to become part of the Church. Who speaks when they get arrested and put on trial, 2 times? It is Peter. It is undoubtable that he is the leader of the Apostles.

Here again He alludeth to his tender carefulness, and to his being very closely attached to Himself. And if any should say, “How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?” I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter(3) teacher, not of the chair, but of the world.
[John Chrysostom on the Gospel of John Homily LXXXIII]

[quote=antiaphrodite]all i can say is that there is no distinction *in meaning, *regarding the petros and petra thing. they both mean “large stone.”

the greek word for “small stone” is “lithos”. (it was used in Matt4:3 when the devil tempts Jesus to change stones/small rocks into stone; it was also used in John10:31, when jews picked up stones to pelt Jesus with, and in (hehe) 1Peter2:5, where St. Peter calls Christians “living stones.”)

besides, as Jesus was addressing Peter the whole passage, it would be strange in the least that He should end it by saying, “and I’m building the Church on Me.”
[/quote]

No need even to go that far. Jesus was not speaking in Greek but in Aramaic, and there are not a variety of terms available for stones in Aramaic. The wods were written years after they were uttered. And if Peter were to be pebbles, it would be lithios, as mentioned.

First of all. That challenge he put up on scripture alone in regards to the papacy is quite a fruitless one.
Second of all. God defines things in unofficial terms.
Third. Ask him where it says that we rely on scripture alone. Besides, do we not honor the American Flag, and that’s not mentioned in the bible. Do we not first, hear the word God come from the mouths of our parents? The idea of sola scriptura is ludicrous.
We are the only Church on earth that lays claim to the fact that Peter did in fact die in Rome. We have the bones (whoops did I say bones guess that’s how I picked out my name lol) to prove it. That guy has his greek confused and used very sloppy exegesis. Ask were he gets his documentation from.

Padre Pio “The Rosary is the weapon.”

SHINOBO,

As soon as an anti-Catholic says ,“Show me a verse in the Bible…”.I say , " Look Buster, we don’t play that Sola Scriptura game!

I would not spend 3 seconds trying to tell a person who is so prejudiced anything. Just ask him to find another hobby.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.