Help Responding To Protestant


#1

There has been an on going to debate in “letters to the editor” in our local paper between catholics and protestants in the small town I live in. We are definately a minority here. In my area there are only three catholic church’s and 340 protestant church’s! Most of them Church of Christ and Baptist.
I am not very good at debating. I know my faith, but not as well as I should and I get nervous and can never think of the right things to say. The good protestants in my area have attacked my faith in a very harsh way as long as I can remember, so I have become very sensitve in my old age. I started to just let it go after reading the letter, but because most of my family have left the Church I do feel an obligation to defend the faith. I just need help saying the right things. The letter is in response to a Mr. Clark and I did not get to read that one.
This is lengthy, but I am hoping some of you can help me out.

Titled: No Trace Of The Papacy
To the Editor:
In his defense of Peter being a Pope, although he was married, Mr. Clark quoted Matt. 19:12 and asked what Jesus meant by a person “renouncing marriage for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven”. I concluded that he was implying that Peter had made that choice and showed that Peter was a bishop (1 Pet. 5:1) and that a bishop must be married and have believing children (Titus 1:5,8)
I appreciate Mr. Clark’s respnse that he believes that Peter was a married man when he became a bishop and “there was no change in that status during his lifetime” (quoting Mr. Clark). I would like to point out that the word eunuch does not necessarily mean what Webster says about it. W. E. Vine’s Dictionary of New Testament words says it may refer to one who is emasculated, or one “voluntarily abstaining from wedlock.” The context of the statement is not about a man who would become a bishop, but about one who would be committing adultery if he married (Matt. 19:9,10; 14:4)
Furthermore, if Peter could be a “universal bishop” as Roman Catholics teach, and be married, why do they require their bishops to abstain from wedlock? If Peter could “lead the way to the kingdom of Heaven” and be married, why could not other bishops do the same?
In his letter, Mr. Clark quoted Matt. 16: 18,19 and said this is when Peter became a bishop. First, the same authority that was given to Peter in this passage is given to all the apostles in Matt. 18:18. Peter had no more authority than any other apostle (2 Cor. 11:5). Secondly, the church was not built upon Peter (Pestros: a pebble, or stone that may be easily moved, se W.E Vine), but upon Petra ( a mass of rock, boulder) - the confession that Peter made of Christ’s deity, as Paul clearly stated in 1 Cor. 3:11. Augustine (a priest in 391) wrote: "What do the words mean, “I will build my church on this rock?”…on this rock which thou hast confessed I will build my church, since Christ is the rock."
Bishop Stroussmayer testified at the Vaticn Council, 1870 (which declared the Pope to be infallible), "Now, having read the whole New Testament, I declare before God, with my hand raised to that great crucifix, that I have found no trace of the papacy as it exists at this moment…I have sought for a pope in the first four centuries, and I have not found him."
The first bishop to declare himself “the universal bishop” was John of Constantinople, in 588. Bishop Gregory, of Rome, said "none of us hath permitted this title to be given to him, none has assumed this bold title."
About eighteen years later Biniface III, of Rome, was declared “universal bishop.” No such office existed in the first century. It is a tradition that contradicts what the NT teaches about the qualifications and work of bishops.
Frank Jamerson


#2

#3

Isaiah 22: ( KJV)
20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah:
21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.
22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
23 And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father’s house.
24 And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father’s house, the offspring and the issue, all vessels of small quantity, from the vessels of cups, even to all the vessels of flagons.

Matthew 16:18-20 ( KJV )

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

Jesus knew exactly what he was saying and doing when
he gave the Keys to Peter…

:slight_smile:


#4

Furthermore, if Peter could be a “universal bishop” as Roman Catholics teach, and be married, why do they require their bishops to abstain from wedlock?

What business or care is it of his whether or not our priests or bishops marry? It seems a stupid thing to be angry about, since he isn’t personally giving anything up. There’s lots of practical reasons for celibacy, but is this worth arguing?

I recommend 1 Corinthians 7, where St. Paul has a lot of good things to say about the virtues of being single!

If Peter could “lead the way to the kingdom of Heaven” and be married, why could not other bishops do the same?

Does he mean he recognizes the authority of any catholic bishop anyway? If so, that is a good start.

But the Acts have a lot of references to how Peter was first among them, to how he spoke, they listened, and how he spoke for them. Too numerous to list here.

[/font]
In his letter, Mr. Clark quoted Matt. 16: 18,19 and said this is when Peter became a bishop. First, the same authority that was given to Peter in this passage is given to all the apostles in Matt. 18:18. Peter had no more authority than any other apostle (2 Cor. 11:5).

I find it hard to read Matthew 16:18-19 and think He was saying that to anyone but Peter.

Secondly, the church was not built upon Peter (Pestros: a pebble, or stone that may be easily moved, se W.E Vine), but upon Petra ( a mass of rock, boulder) - the confession that Peter made of Christ’s deity, as Paul clearly stated in 1 Cor. 3:11. Augustine (a priest in 391) wrote: “What do the words mean, “I will build my church on this rock?”…on this rock which thou hast confessed I will build my church, since Christ is the rock.”

Fr. Echert of EQTN Q&A said this on the subject.

“The original Aramaic name given to Simon by our Lord was “Cepha” which means rock. The Greek equivalent is “Petra” but since this is a feminine noun in Greek, it is rendered with the masculine ending as “Petros” in the New Testament. Contrary to what some non-Catholics claim, the use of “Petros” does not manifest an intention to regard Peter as a small stone rather than a rock but is simply done in accord with the rules of grammar and convention in the Greek. Such is obvious when we consider that the actual name given him by the Lord, “Cepha,” admits of NO such distinction between a small stone and large rock. To the best of my knowledge and based upon the work of other scholars I have read, I am not aware of another instance of this name in antiquity–certainly it was not commonly known or used. So our Lord was not only creating a new position within the New Covenant people but He appears to have done so with a new name. ©”

Bishop Stroussmayer testified at the Vaticn Council, 1870 (which declared the Pope to be infallible),

But we always believed it. Much of what gets formally declared was only done so out of response to the persistent begging of the faithful to have it done. The doctrine of papal infallibility did not start at this time. It always existed.

[quote]“Now, having read the whole New Testament, I declare before God, with my hand raised to that great crucifix, that I have found no trace of the papacy as it exists at this moment…I have sought for a pope in the first four centuries, and I have not found him.”

The first bishop to declare himself “the universal bishop” was John of Constantinople, in 588. Bishop Gregory, of Rome, said "none of us hath permitted this title to be given to him, none has assumed this bold title."
About eighteen years later Biniface III, of Rome, was declared “universal bishop.” No such office existed in the first century. It is a tradition that contradicts what the NT teaches about the qualifications and work of bishops.
Frank Jamerson
[/quote]

History does not agree with this at all. If you check 3rd party, secular historical almanacs, history books, they normally show a papacy that starts with Peter.

Here is one.

britannia.com/history/resource/popes.html


#5

Wrong! This was written by St Irenaeus (Against heresies 3) in 190 AD -
newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority …

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes…

To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.


#6

The posts do help. Thanks Papa! The link is really helpfull.

I’m going to try and find out if Bishop Stroussmayer really made that comment.


#7

Another thing to mention is the significance of Jesus changing Peter’s name. The changing of one’s name in the bible is only done to denote a major grace being bestowed, ie, when Abram’s name was changed to Abraham.


#8

1.Titus. He does not mandate it. Paul, the man writing this, is guess what? A single bishop. :eek: So to say that is was a madate that all bishops be married seems to be contradictory. Again it dosn’t seem to be saying that you must but, simply that if you are keep your house undercontrol.
2.Jesus didn’t speak Greek. He was not Greek. Never went to greek. He is hebrew and spole aramic. And guess what? The Two words for Peter and Rock are the same. Now Jesus also never changed subjects. “You are Peter and your proffesion is what I will build my church on…” never happened. It was all on Peter.
3.The early church did beleive in the Papacy.
catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp
catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp
way before the fourth and fifth century.
4.So because they didn’t use the title “Pope” at the begging along with other titles that he know has it is false. ??? That’s a way to determine things. I called my dad Sir long before I started calling him Dad. That doesn’t mean that because I didn’t start out calling him dad that he isn’t my dad.
Here are some articles that go into the issues rather in depth using scripture and Early church fathers. It’s a bit long but, well worth the time. catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp
Good luck, I will be praying for ya’ll.


#9

Also, look at scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

www.Scripturecatholic.com is a great website to get a lot of scripture (doesn’t do a lot of commentary like this website :frowning: sadly).


#10

I like what Karl Keating had to say about Peter’s wife, at the bottom of this e-letter:

… let’s consider Matthew 8:14-15 and Luke 4:38-39. Both accounts say that Peter’s mother-in-law was sick with a fever. Jesus rebuked the fever. It left her, and she got up and served him and his companions.

What about Peter’s wife? She is nowhere mentioned. I always have found this strange. I can imagine the scene. There is the mother-in-law, lying on a bed and covered with a blanket. At her side, as one would expect, is her dutiful daughter–except that Matthew and Luke make no reference to her daughter.

Leaving her out of the story seems strange. It is not the way a writer would be expected to handle the incident, since a daughter usually is the one most frantic about a mother’s condition.

The story is tantalizingly brief, and maybe the Evangelists decided to leave out all but the most salient facts. Or maybe it was just an oversight. Or maybe it was because Peter’s wife wasn’t there–she already may had died. I think this is the most likely explanation for her non-appearance.

However that may be, there is an ancient tradition, stated by Clement of Alexandria and repeated by Eusebius of Caesarea, that says that Peter’s wife suffered martyrdom. We can’t tell whether this tradition is well founded. As a writer who has some understanding of how writers compose stories, I nevertheless lean toward my own interpretation, but I give it without guarantee. …


#11

Cool erich. I never thought about that. Thanks.


#12

[quote=Montie Claunch]1.Titus. He does not mandate it. Paul, the man writing this, is guess what? A single bishop. :eek: So to say that is was a madate that all bishops be married seems to be contradictory. Again it dosn’t seem to be saying that you must but, simply that if you are keep your house undercontrol.
2.Jesus didn’t speak Greek. He was not Greek. Never went to greek. He is hebrew and spole aramic. And guess what? The Two words for Peter and Rock are the same. Now Jesus also never changed subjects. “You are Peter and your proffesion is what I will build my church on…” never happened. It was all on Peter.
3.The early church did beleive in the Papacy.
catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp
catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp
way before the fourth and fifth century.
4.So because they didn’t use the title “Pope” at the begging along with other titles that he know has it is false. ??? That’s a way to determine things. I called my dad Sir long before I started calling him Dad. That doesn’t mean that because I didn’t start out calling him dad that he isn’t my dad.
Here are some articles that go into the issues rather in depth using scripture and Early church fathers. It’s a bit long but, well worth the time. catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp
Good luck, I will be praying for ya’ll.
[/quote]

Thank you so much!


#13

what about what he claims that Augustine said about Christ being the rock. He confused me on that one.


#14

[quote=Montie Claunch]Also, look at scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

www.Scripturecatholic.com is a great website to get a lot of scripture (doesn’t do a lot of commentary like this website :frowning: sadly).
[/quote]

While scripturecatholic.com is a great website for finding scriptural references in support of Catholic beliefs, www.davidmacd.com/catholic/index2.htm is a great one for commentary as well.


#15

[quote=CatholicChef]Thank you so much!
[/quote]

Your welcome. If you need any help later on we are here for you.

[quote=Catholic29]While scripturecatholic.com is a great website for finding scriptural references in support of Catholic beliefs, www.davidmacd.com/catholic/index2.htm is a great one for commentary as well.
[/quote]

Thanks. I like commentaries.


#16

I’m going to try and find out if Bishop Stroussmayer really made that comment.

Bishop Stroussmayer testified at the Vaticn Council, 1870 (which declared the Pope to be infallible), “Now, having read the whole New Testament, I declare before God, with my hand raised to that great crucifix, that I have found no trace of the papacy as it exists at this moment…I have sought for a pope in the first four centuries, and I have not found him.”

Just think about it for a second, does that comment that Bishop Strossmayer supposedly said sound ANYTHING like what any sort of half-orthodox Catholic bishop would say? It sounds an awful lot like the good Bishop was just really a dyed in the wool Evangelical just waiting for a chance to denounce the “inventions of Rome”. I’m sure some fundamentalist gave him a Bible (which, as you know, Catholics don’t read the Bible) and then his eyes were opened to the “truth” and he became Born Again.

In reality, it is just a piece of protestant propaganda that unfortunately just will not die and one of the tired pieces of garbage that ticks me off a bit when protestants try to sling it at Catholics.

Just think if we would put their sects to the scrutiny that everyone puts the Catholic Church to (and this site certainly helps ALOT), I think fundamentalist/evangelical protestantism would be dead within the end of the century. All they can come up with is obvious forgeries, foolish conspiracy theories, biased and wrong reading of history and poor Biblical exeges and a myriad of misconceptions, ignorance, and stubborness that one first has to wade through.

Bishop Strossmayer DID oppose defining Papal Infallibility at Vatican I, but not because he did not think it was true. I believe his issue was one of prudence. He saw the issue as devisive and something that might have put more difficulties in furthering our Ecumenical attempts to reunify the Orthodox to Rome-especially in his diocese, where there was close contact between Catholics and members of the Orthodox Churches.

After Papal Infallibility was defined, he submitted to the teaching like a orthodox bishop should. Later in 1898, was given the pallium by Pope Leo XIII-would the Pope give such an honor to a turncoat heretic bishop?

Here’s a couple links to check out-

angelfire.com/ms/seanie/strossmayer.html

newadvent.org/cathen/14316a.htm

This next site is a heretical site, but you can read what Strossmayer supposedly wrote. Read it. You will see how obviously false it is.

tyngsborochurchofchrist.org/strossmayer1.html


#17

Just as an example, let us look at one part of the alleged “Strossmayer Speech”-

I have set myself to study with the most serious attention the Old and New Testaments, and I have asked these venerable monuments of truth to make known to me if the holy pontiff, who presides here is truly the successor of St. Peter, vicar of Jesus Christ, and the infallible doctor of the church. To resolve this grave question I have been obliged to ignore the present state of things, and to transport myself in mind, with the evangelical torch in my hand, to the days when there was neither Ultramontanism[1] nor Gallicanism,[2] and in which the church had for doctors St. Paul, St. Peter, St. James, and St. John—doctors to whom no one can deny the divine authority without putting in doubt that which the holy Bible, which is here before me, teaches us, and which the Council of Trent has proclaimed as the rule of faith and of morals.[3]

Here are the footnotes-

[1] “A term used to denote integral and active Catholicism, because it recognizes as its spiritual head the Pope, who, for the greater part of Europe, is a dweller beyond the mountains (ultra montes), that is, beyond the Alps. … This name of Ultramontane the Gallicans applied to the supporters of the Roman doctrines–whether that of the monarchical character of the Pope in the government of the Church or of the infallible pontifical magisterium—inasmuch as the latter were suppose to renounce ‘Gallican liberties’ in favour of the head of Church who resided ultra monte” (Benigni, p. 125).

[2] “Gallicanism and all forms of French and German regalism affected to look upon the Holy See as an alien power because it was beyond the Alpine boundaries of both the French and the German empire (Benigni, p. 125).

[3] Fourth Session, held April 8, 1546. “Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures.”

I would like to draw your attention to this phrase of the alleged speech-

and which the Council of Trent has proclaimed as the rule of faith and of morals.

Now, read what the Council of Trent REALLY says-http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html

I will tell you this much, it says NOTHING about the Bible being the {sole} rule of faith and morals like this passage would imply.

It does say this-

Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,–in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; [Page 20] or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.

So, even if Strossmayer gave this bogus speech-he shot himself in the foot by quoting the Council of Trent. According to the Council, someone who holds such an opinion as is espoused in the “speech” is wrong and are subject to Ecclesiastical penalties.

I could go on, but you get the point. The “speech” is sprinkled with enough Catholic “flair”, some footnotes, and halftruths to make it sound legitimate to the average man on the street. However, with a couple minutes research (Thank God for the Internet!) the rational person can see that it falls in on itself.


#18

[quote=johnshelby]Isaiah 22: ( KJV)
20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah:
21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.
22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
23 And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father’s house.
24 And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father’s house, the offspring and the issue, all vessels of small quantity, from the vessels of cups, even to all the vessels of flagons.

Matthew 16:18-20 ( KJV )

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

Jesus knew exactly what he was saying and doing when
he gave the Keys to Peter…

:slight_smile:
[/quote]

This is beautiful and the best defense of the one holy Catholic and apostolic church.


#19

what about what he claims that Augustine said about Christ being the rock. He confused me on that one.

This is what he quotes-

Augustine (a priest in 391) wrote: “What do the words mean, “I will build my church on this rock?”…on this rock which thou hast confessed I will build my church, since Christ is the rock.”

First, I would ask him to quote his sources. It certainly looks like it could well be out of context, and the little “…” says volumes because there could be volumes within that deletion. Ask for a source, verify it, see if it is truly in context or what St. Augustine meant by this quote.

Also, look at some of the other things that St. Augustine says and you can see that St. Augustine certainly believed in the Primacy of Rome, Apostolic Succession, and the office of Pope-

Quoted from this site-

“[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397]).

“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

“Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

“Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies” (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).

“Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

Never let the fundamentalists twist the words of the Early Church Fathers (and of course likewise for the Bible)-they are both completely and unquestionably Catholic.

Remember too, St. Augustine is the great Doctor of the Church who said something to the effect of, “Roma locuta est, causa finita est”-Rome (the Pope) has spoken, the cause is finished.

Here is some more about St. Augustine-

bringyou.to/apologetics/num16.htm


closed #20

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.