Please help refute this....Sola scripture vs Roman Catholicism

Dear Suzyq, at fist I thought ‘wish I was in KS’ then I realized I have very good , very knowledgeable Catholic friends there. You can send me a private mssg or just contact them through their goat milk soap website kansasgoatmilksoap.com/ . BTW They make the best soap ever. I think they are just north of Lawrence. If that is too far or even so I would suggest you not do this study with a non Catholic until you know your faith better it will only continue to be a source of frustration for you and you might loose a friend. I assume it is a friend you are studying John with. I have done 2 Catholic Bible studies through this organization site salvationhistory.com/studies/courses/online that will take you from the basics. I also can highly recommend getting on and diving into catholic-convert.com/ by Steve Ray who is often on CAF. His Footprints of God video series is passionate ( sort of Indiana Jones of the Catholic Church of today) , fun , basic and informative. As a convert from the Baptist beliefs he has encountered/made all the arguments you are getting he knows the WHY of being Catholic. Then I still recommend the book Surprised by Truth.
BUT IF YOU MUST continue to study John with your friend , then I recommend that you suggest that you would like to study it after you have both read together a book called The Lamb’s Supper by Scott Hahn and ask your friend to please respect your faith teaching and not try to bash your Church and you will do the same for them. Good luck and God bless.

=suzyq_psu;9126895]Thank you all, I am looking into lots of books to read from the library and the home study that you suggested. It makes sense to me (the tradition part) but most arguments will say well who says the tradition is Catholic tradition? How can I convince them that Peter was the first Pope?

Here are two aids,

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

Clement of Alexandria
[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples
, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian
[T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:18-19]. … Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loose
and, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Letter of Clement to James
Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

Cyprian
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

Cyril of Jerusalem
In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).

Optatus
In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

Ambrose of Milan
[Christ] made answer: “You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . .” Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]? (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

Augustine
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]).

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

Look for a PM from me,

God Bless,
Pat*

Why in the world would you waste time on this website? Who directed you to it. This cite says for Messianic Jews and Christians. It should say for Jewish Protestants and Protestants of a certain type. For starters consider that Israel of today does not correlate with Exodus 19, it is an invention of the United Nations and Evangelical Protestants from Britian. Realize that this desire for Israel emanates from Dispensational thought, a product of the Irish Protestant church, a la Nelson Darby.

Stop wasting your time on this stuff. There is no struggle just confusion from those that are confused.:slight_smile:

Do you mean refute or reject?

Originally Posted by suzyq_psu
Hello there, I am new to these forums but I am struggling between my faith and that of scripture alone. I keep going back and forth, it’s torturous! Anyways I came upon this, so could you refute it, please? It talks about how the church wasn’t built on Peter also he has other thread talking of how Catholics were pagans turned Christians and that’s where we get most of the rituals

My great Irish granddaddy used to say: “we are FAR more likely to find trouble when we go looking for it”:smiley:

Consider these Bibles passages carefully and prayerfully:
Matt.16 Verses 18-19
“And I [JESUS] tell you, you are Peter,[SINGULAR] and on this rock YOU “Peter means ROCK”] I** will build my church,** and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I [Jesus] will give you [Peter / the CC ONLY] 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.”

**Matt.10: 2 **“The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zeb’edee, and John his brother;”

NOTICE HERE IN THE FIRST GOSPEL AUTHORED THAT PETER IS SPECIFICALLY NAMED AS “FIRST” OF THE APOSTLES.

SEND BE A PM IF YOU’D LIKE FUTHER VERIFICATION.

**Acts.20: 28 “Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God ** [SINGULAR] which he obtained with the blood of his own Son.”

Mt. 28: 16-19 "Matt.28 Verses 16 - 19
“Now the eleven disciples [Apostles] went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. … And Jesus came and said to them, "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,”

Eph. 2:19-20 “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.”

AND HERE ARE A FEW QUESTIONS TO ASK

IF NOT PETER;WHO? AND HOW VERIFIED? JAMES WAS THE 1ST, BISHOP OF JERUSALEM;PETER THE IST.POPE

SOLA SCRIPTORA IS NOT FOUND ANYWHERE IN THE BIBLE! BUT THE ABOVE ARE:D

**John 21:14-17 **"This was now the third time that Jesus was revealed to the disciples after he was raised from the dead. When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, **“Feed my lambs.” ** A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, **“Tend my sheep.” **He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, ***“Feed my sheep.” ***

So what? Jesus lied?:shrug:

God bless you,

I OFFER a completley FREE Course on our Catholic Faith. Send me a PM if you’d like to actually learn what we beelieve and WHY:)

Pat [PJM] on this Forum

Catholic, all Orthodox, Lutheran, most Anglicans, Polish National Catholic Church, Old Catholics.

Jon

YEA BUT!

ONLY the Cathoic church [s] have the Eucharist BOTH VALIDLY and LICITLY…

For those unfilmiliar with the terms; this means…

ONLY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH [S] REALLY AND TRULY DO HAVE THE “REAL PRESENCE”:thumbsup:

No need to yell, Pat. :smiley:

Yours is the opinion of the Catholic Church, which you do well to spell out, as a Catholic. All the other communions I mentioned disagree with what you say here.

Jon

Yep.

GKC

The Catholic answer is not so obvious.

Does Mark have to say he authored “The Gospel of Mark” in order for Sola Scriptura to be true? If so, can you explain why without assuming a misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura?

Note, Sola Scripturists misunderstand Sola Scriptura, which is why they “come up with different answers”. So to refute one’s representation of the doctrine, even if he’s an advocate of it, might be to refute a straw-man.

I think this is a protestant way of thinking. That the teachings are BASED on scripture. They may be found in the scriptures and we can use scripture for support but they aren’t based on the words on the page. The Faith is not a product of the Bible but rather the Bible is a product of the Faith.

Btw, cool to see another Memphian on here. :slight_smile:

Well, here’s my “different” answer to your question. Unlike the Epistle of St. James, throughout the history of the Church, AFAIK, the authorship of St. Mark has not been questioned. The historic Church, the ECF’s have always considered Mark as the author. One doesn’t use sola scriptura in the way you have described. SS is a hermeunetical practice, not a historical research tool. As far back as Eusebius, again AFAIK, the Gospel has always been universally accepted as scripture, again unlike James, Revelation, and some others.

Jon

=JonNC;9129886]No need to yell, Pat. :smiley:

Yours is the opinion of the Catholic Church, which you do well to spell out, as a Catholic. All the other communions I mentioned disagree with what you say here.

Jon

Pushing 68 with trifocals, it’s the only way I can see what I’m wrting [almost]:smiley:

I Do get a bit Enthusiastic at times:o

SORRY about that my friend,

God Bless you and have a HOLY Easter as I no doubt you will:)

Pat

If tradition of the fathers contradicts scripture, who are we to believe? Does Scripture take precedence over tradition ?

=Phineas;9130369]If tradition of the fathers contradicts scripture, who are we to believe? Does Scripture take precedence over tradition ?

They don’r BUT as a FYI: MANY Sacred Traditions are a part of scripture:)

Keep in mind the Bible was not fully written and assembled for nearly 70 years AFTER Christ Died and ROSE FROM THE DEAD.

WERE IT NOT FOR TRADITION there would be NO bible to debate:thumbsup:

This forum is probably the best thing I have ever come upon as a Catholic. I am glad the resources are out here. I am feeling much better now about things and have definitely decided to study my faith more and not stray until I get a good understanding of it. I know that God brought the Divine Mercy in my life for a reason…he really did in more ways than one, it’s definitely supernatural how I ended up with it (the image) and the chaplet and that my church changed their name to it, and that my mother in law was reading the Diary of St.Faustina when she came to visit and left it with me etc. etc. I know with prayer and meditation I will get this all worked out. I believe God is trying to lead me home. Thank you all.

Oh and PJM not sure how to PM on here, if you could just send me a message that would be appreciated :slight_smile:

There are many traditions in both Catholic and Protestant churches that contradict scripture…Here are just a few:

1 Tim 2:5 For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Yet many Catholics call Mary a Mediatrix and they even consider her to be of an immaculate conception but Mary herself said that she needed a Savior
Luke 1:46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
1:47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior.

Some Protestant denominations say the law was nailed to the cross
but the Apostle John says:
Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God

This comes from a common misunderstanding of Colossians chapter 2. There, it says that Christ canceled the record of debt that we had incurred to the law, nailing it to the cross. Of course, it doesn’t say the law was nailed to the cross, it says our debt was nailed to the cross.

Hey Pat,
No beed to apologize. that’s why the :smiley: was there. I know you, and how much you love your faith, and I honor and respect that. You’ve always been charitable and friendly to me.

Jon

what traditions? Which fathers?

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.