4evergod3:


YOU ARE MISGUIDED! THIS IS THE SCRIPTURE IN ITS TRUE LIGHT.


[b]Then Jesus answered Peter:

"... thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18

Catholicism contends that the Lord was refer
ring to Peter as the rock, and has since built the entire Catholic religion upon that premise. But all other pertinent Scriptures declare that Jesus was referring to Himself as the rock, not Peter:

"... for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." 1 Corinthians 10:4

Jesus is not only the rock, He is the chief cornerstone of the church:

"And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;" Ephesians 2:20

Back in the Old Testament, it was prophesied that Jesus, whom men rejected, would become the cornerstone of the church:

"The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner." Psalm 118:22

Even Peter, allegedly the first pope, confesses that Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of the church:

"...by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth... This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner." Acts 4:10-11

"... the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner," 1 Peter 2:7

According to Scriptures, Peter is NOT the rock:

"For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God?" Psalm 18:31

"... I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. He is the Rock..." Deuteronomy 32:3-4

"Truly my soul waiteth upon God... He only is my rock..." Psalm 62:1-2

"But the LORD is my defence; and my God is the rock of my refuge." Psalm 94:22

Who is the head of the church

Despite all these Scriptures, Catholicism still claims that Peter was the rock and his successors are the head of the church:

"The sole Church of Christ (is that) which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it... This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successors of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him."

But the Bible declares that Jesus Christ, not Peter or his successors, is the head of the church:

"And he (Christ) is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he (Christ) might have the preeminence." Colossians 1:18

"And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him (Christ) to be the head over all things to the church," Ephesians 1:22

"But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:" Ephesians 4:15

The biblical "church"

When the Bible uses the words "the church," it always refers to all those who trust in Jesus Christ alone for salvation, not just to members of the Catholic church:

"Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord..." 1 Corinthians 1:2

The Apostle Paul wrote:

"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;" Ephesians 5:25

Paul was not a Catholic, yet he knew that Christ loved him and died for him. Certainly, no one would dare say that Paul was not a Christian because he was not a Catholic.

Would anyone suggest that God only loves Catholics?... or that He only died for Catholics? Such would be the case if the Catholic church was the only church.

Paul also proclaimed:

"And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us..." Ephesians 5:2

Can non-Catholics be Christians?

As the "one true church," Catholicism claims the right to determine who is or is not a Christian:

"All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.

In other words, if you have not been baptized into the Catholic church, you are not a Christian. These are not my words, but the words of the official Catholic Catechism.

But according to Scripture, it doesn't matter if the Catholic church has accepted you or not. If your faith is in Jesus Christ alone, then He has already accepted you:

"To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he (Jesus) hath made us accepted in the beloved." Ephesians 1:6

Conclusion

At this point, you must make a few decisions:

Is Peter really the rock? The Catechism says he is, but God's Word says he is not.
Is the Catholic church the one true church? The Catechism says yes, but the Bible says no.
Do you really believe that all non-Catholics will burn in hell?
Once again, the answers to each of these questions will be determined by which you choose to believe... the traditions of men, or God's Word. Jesus asked the Pharisees a question which all Roman Catholics should ponder:

"Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" Matthew 15:3[/b]

Another copy and paste from jack cick's website.Can't you ever make up your own rebuttal?it appears you are very intellectually hollow and merely regurgitates gibberish you read on the internet.

Now Peter's name was originally Simon but Jesus changed his name to Peter which means rock.Jesus's portrayal as the chief cornerstone does not in any way vitiate peter's position.Besides all those bible passages you copied from jack chick's website has got nothing to do with mattew 18 other than the mention of the term "rock".

Jesus before he ascended to heaven formally handed over the care of his sheep to st Peter.In the gospel of John ,he thrice asked him to take care of his flock.

There is no question about it, God is certainly the Rock. But why did He also name Simon "rock"?

Let us start by looking at the word rock in the Old Testament. The Hebrew word for rock is "Tsur". It is also interesting that the word "tsur" also means God. Some versions of the Bible translate the Hebrew word "Tsur" as "rock" and some translate it as "God". For example, the King James Version of the Bible translates tsur as follows:

"As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the Lord is tried. He is a buckler to all those that trust in him. For who is God save the Lord, or who is a rock (Tsur) save our God?" (Psalm 18).

The Catholic Douay-Rheims version of the Bible translates the same passage as follows:
"As for my God, his way is undefiled: the words of the Lord are fire tried: he is the protector of all that trust in Him. For who is God but the Lord? or who is God (Tsur) but our God?" (Psalm 18:31-32).

We can see that the name "Rock" belongs properly to God, for He is truly our unmovable rock: "The Lord is my rock (tsur) and my fortress" (Psalm 18:2); "Unto thee will I cry, O Lord, my rock (tsur) (ibid. 28:1); I will say unto God, my rock (tsur) (ibid. 42:9); Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from Him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock (tsur) and my salvation...My soul, wait thou only upon God ... my rock (tsur) and my salvation... He is my rock(tsur) ..." (ibid 62:2,6,7); "and they remembered that God was their rock (tsur)" (ibid. 78:35).

So we can see that what Protestants say is correct. God is the rock. And not only is He called Rock, but the Hebrew word for rock (tsur), also means God.

But there is another person in the Old Testament who is called by this name rock (tsur). Abraham, the father of the Jewish race is referred to as a “rock” in the Old Testament: "Look unto the rock (tsur) whence you are hewn ... look unto Abraham your Father" (Isaias 51:1-2). Why does the Bible call Abraham "rock"?

The Symbolism of Father Abraham: As we know, the Old Testament has many "types" and "images" of New Testament realities. The Paschal Lamb, for example, that was sacrificed by the Jews during Passover, foreshadowed Our Lord who was sacrificed for us on Mt. Calvary during Passover. The Old Testament Lamb could not take away sins, but rather pointed to the One who would. That is why, when John the Baptist saw our Lord, he declared "behold the Lamb of God, the one who taketh away the sins of the world". There are countless other examples of the Old Testament foreshadowing the New Testament. We will look at one other…

In the Old Testament, God is often referred to as "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob". I believe this threefold name is an Old Testament "image" of the Blessed Trinity. This image becomes clear when we consider that Father Abraham (who represents God the Father) led his son Isaac up Mt. Moria to be sacrificed to God. Isaac, his son (who represents Jesus) carried the wood up the Mountain, just as Our Lord carried the wood of the cross up Mt. Calvary. Mt. Moria was later re-named Calvary, and is the same mountain upon which Our Lord was crucified. Jacob, the third person, represents the Holy Ghost who is the third person of the Blessed Trinity. This explains why the New Testament Church - whose members have become "a temple of the Holy Ghost" (1 Cor. 6:16) - is called in Scripture "the house of Jacob" (Luke 1), for Jacob represents the Holy Ghost who dwells within the Church. So we can see that "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" was an image of the Blessed Trinity, which explains why God was called by that triune name.

The name Rock, which properly belongs to God, was also attributed to Abraham as one who prefigured God the Father. I believe that is why Abraham is referred to as Rock (tsur) in the Old Testament.

Now, if we proceed to the New Testament we will find that God (Jesus) is again called by the name Rock. "and the rock that followed them was Christ " (1 Cor. 10. Also see 1 Peter 2:6-7 and Romans 9:33). So we see that in both the Old Testament and the New, God is called "Rock".

Yet we also see that God gave this name Rock (a name which belongs to God) to another man: and this man was Simon, bar Jona. In the Old Testament, Abraham, who was the Father of the Jewish nation, was only referred to as "Rock" in passing, yet Jesus did not just refer to Simon as "rock", but went so far as to change his name to Rock! Jesus conveyed a name upon Simon which properly belonged to God! "And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou are Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter (rock) (John 1:42). Is it a mere coincidence that Jesus, who is the Rock, changed Peter's name to Rock? I think not.

What's in a name? : When God imposes a name on someone, the name conveys a meaning that describes the person. For example, since Abraham was a "type" of God the Father, and the Father of the Jewish race, God changed his name from Abram, to Abraham. The name Abraham means "father of a multitude" (Strongs #85, Hebrew). In re-naming Abram "Abraham", God designated him as the Father of the Jewish people. So likewise, when Our Lord renamed Simon Peter, which means rock, he designated him as the visible representative of Himself, the true rock, and gave Peter a participation in His own authority when he declared: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys to the kingdom of heaven" which properly belong to Me "and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Mt 16:20).

St. Basil: "Peter is made the foundation, because he says: Thou are Christ, the Son of the Living God; and hears in reply that he is a rock. But although a rock, he is not such a rock as Christ; for Christ is truly an immovable rock, but Peter, only by virtue of that rock [i.e. Christ]. For Jesus bestows His dignities on others; He is a priest, and He makes priests; a rock, and He makes a rock; what belongs to Himself, He bestows on His servants" (St. Basil, circa 345AD).

There is certainly a great significance to God naming Simon, Peter (which means rock). For "Rock" is a name that belongs properly to God Himself, and only used to refer to only one other person in the old teastament: and that person is no less a figure than Father Abraham, the father of the Jewish race. Such things are not a coincidence.

Before I proceed, I want to quote from the Catechism of the Council of Trent so that we can get an accurate understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches regarding the office of the Pope.

"The Church has but one ruler and one governor, the invisible one, Christ, whom the eternal Father 'hath made head over all the Church, which is his body' [Eph. 1:22-23], the visible one, the Pope, who, as legitimate successor of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, fills the Apostolic chair.

"It is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that this visible head is necessary to establish and preserve unity in the Church. This St. Jerome clearly perceived and clearly expressed when, in his work against Jovinian, he wrote: 'One is elected that, by the appointment of a head, all occasion of schism may be removed'. In his letter to Pope Damasus the same holy Doctor writes: 'Away with envy, let the ambition of Roman grandeur cease! I speak to the successor of the fisherman, and to the disciple of the cross. Following no chief but Christ, I am united to communion with your Holiness, that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that on that rock is built the Church. Whoever will eat the lamb outside this house is profane; whosoever is not in the ark of Noah [an Old Testament type of the Catholic Church] shall perish in the flood.

"The same doctrine was long before established by Saint Irenaeus, and Cyprian. ...Again, Optatus of Milevi says: 'You cannot be excused on the score of ignorance, knowing as you do that in the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was first conferred on Peter, who occupied it as head of the Apostles; in order that in that one chair the unity of the Church might be preserved by all, and that the other Apostles might not claim each a chair for himself; so that now he who erects another in opposition to this single chair is a schismatic and a prevaricator'.

" Later on St. Basil wrote: 'Peter is made the foundation, because he says: Thou are Christ, the Son of the Living God; and hears in reply that he is a rock. But although a rock, he is not such a rock as Christ; for Christ is truly an immovable rock, but Peter, only by virtue of that rock [i.e. Christ]. For Jesus bestows His dignities on others; He is a priest, and He makes priests; a rock, and He makes a rock; what belongs to Himself, He bestows on His servants'. "Lastly, St. Ambrose says: 'Because he alone of all of them professed (Christ) he was placed above all'." (The Catechism of the Council of Trent pgs. 102 - 104).

More evidence of Peter being the chief Apostle: The fact that St. Peter was the head of the Apostles is indicated in many other places of the New Testament. For example, although Peter was not the first apostle chosen by Our Lord, when the Apostles are listed, Peter's name is always first (Matt. 10:2-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13), while Judas (who betrayed Jesus) is always last. Although the other apostles are not always in the same order, the writers, who were inspired by God, were always careful to place St. Peter's name at the beginning of the list, and Judas' last.

Peter's name is also mentioned about six times more than any other Apostle, and more times that all of the other Apostles combined, which also shows a certain prominence. The Bible also calls Peter "the first" (protos) Apostle (St. Matt 10:2). The Greek word Protos is the Latin word Primus, from which we get the word "Primacy". So when the Bible says that Peter was "the first" Apostle, it could be translated to say that Peter held the Primacy over the others; or that he was the "Chief" Apostle (Strongs # 4413, Greek).

St. Jerome: "Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord" (Lives of Illustrious Men 1 [A.D. 396]).


It is also interesting to notice that when the Bible speaks of the Apostles, It often refers to them as "Peter, and the others", etc. "Tell his disciples, and Peter (St. Mark 16). "Peter standing up, with the eleven" (Acts. 2). "And Simon, and they who were with him…" (St. Mark 1). This again seems to show that Peter was the leader of the others. We also know that when it came time to pay taxes, Jesus paid the taxes for both Himself and Peter, but not the other Apostles. And it was to St. Peter only that Jesus gave the command to "confirm the brethren" (Luke 22:32); and again, Jesus gave Peter alone the command to "feed My lambs, feed by sheep" (John 21:17).

Ephraim the Syrian: "[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

Now, let us again review the controversial verse from Matthew, Chapter 16. Jesus said to Simon: "Thou art Peter [rock], and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you [singular] the keys to the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you [singular] shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you [singular] shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Mt 16:20).

Now, it is often claimed by non-Catholics that the "Rock" upon which Jesus will build His Church, refers to Jesus, and not Peter; or to Peter's confession of faith, but not Peter; or anything else, just not Peter. Or that the words "Petra and Petrus have greatly different meanings, and therefore somehow change the obvious meaning of what is said. Now it is certainly true that Jesus is referred to in Scripture as rock, and indeed IS the true rock. Yet who does not see that in the very same sentence where Jesus says that he will build his Church "upon this rock", he renames Peter "rock"? Is there no significance to this? Is this a mere coincidence? And what about the very next sentence, which is no less significant. "I will give unto you" said Jesus to Peter "the keys to the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Mt 16:20).

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 loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

It is commonly known that the conveyance of keys is a conveyance of authority. In the book of Isaias, we read a passage somewhat similar to the one quoted above from the New Testament: "And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Helcias, and I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be called a father [Pope?] to the inhabitants of Jerusalem [Rome?], and to the house of Juda [Church?]. And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder, and he shall open, and no one shall shut: and he shall shut, and no one shall open" (Ch. 22).

The "keys" properly belong to Our Lord; for it was He who merited them for us: "I am the first and the last, alive and was dead: and behold I am living for ever and ever, and have the keys of death and Hell" (Apoc. 1:17-18). And further on: "These things saith the Holy One and the True One, who hath the keys of David: He that openeth and no man shutteth, shutteth and no man openeth"( Apoc 3:7). Yet who will deny the obvious words of Scripture wherein Our Lord passed these keys on to St. Peter, along with the words "Whatsoever thou shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in Heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven"(ibid.). Thus we see Our Lord delegating the power which is properly His, to St. Peter, at the same time that He gave Peter the name which properly belongs to himself.

The obvious meaning is that Jesus is establishing Peter as the earthly head of His Church and conveying His authority upon Peter. This was the unanimous consent of Christianity up until the 16th century.

We know that when the Jews rejected Jesus, He established a new Church. This new Church consists of both Jews and Gentiles. In the Old Testament, Moses was the first earthly head of the Church. After he died the Jewish religion was ruled by his successor, who sat in the "chair of Moses" (St. Matt 23:2). In the New Testament Church, God no longer rules from the "Chair of Moses", but from the "Chair of Peter". If we do not wish to stray from the true fold, we must follow this voice: "In the Catholic Church I adhere to the Chair of Peter. Whoever does not wish to stray from the true fold must follow this voice" (St. Augustine, Apostolic Digest pg 251, circa 410AD).

The following symbolically describes what took place when the Jews rejected Our Lord: "Jesus rose up out of the synagogue and went into Peter's house" (Luke 4:38). Now Our Lord teaches from Peter's ship (diocese): "and [Jesus] going into a ship that was Peter's… He taught the multitude out of the Ship (Luke 5:3).

"It is to Peter to whom Christ said: 'Thou are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church.' Where Peter is, there is no death but eternal life. Where Peter is, there is the Church" (St. Ambrose - Commentary on 12 of David's Psalms, circa 360AD).

I will end this with the words of the Fathers of the Church.

St. Cyprian of Carthage 251AD: "The Lord says to Peter: 'I say to you,' He says, 'that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven' (Mt 16:18-19)... 'On him (Peter) he builds his Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep' (Jn 21:17), and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair, and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was (ie. apostles), 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?" (Cyprian of Carthage, 251 AD)

St. Cyril of Jerusalem: "As members of the Mystical Body of the Church, it behooves us to follow our head, the Roman Pontiff, who holds in trust the deposit of the Apostolic Faith. From him we are to learn what we are bound to believe, to think, and to hold. By divine right, everyone bows down the head before him." (St. Cyril of Jerusalem - Catechetical Lectures pg. 33, circa 350AD)

St. Augustine: "These miserable retches, refusing to acknowledge the Rock as Peter, and to believe that the Church has received the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, have lost these very Keys from their own hands. (St. Augustine, Christian Combat, circa 397AD).

Tertullian: "Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called 'the rock on whom the Church would be built' [Mt 16:18] with the power of 'loosing and binding in heaven and on earth' {Mt 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 200AD)

· (Endnote) In an attempt to get around Peter being the rock upon whom Jesus said he would build His Church, many will go to the Greek text of the Scriptures to show that the word used for "Peter" is not the same word used for "this rock" upon which Jesus said He would build His Church. The following is Matthew 16:18 showing the two Greek words for rock. "Thou art Peter (Petrus) and upon this rock (Petra) I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Mt 16:18). After showing, in the Greek, that the word for Peter is not the exact same word that is used for rock, they will conclude by explaining that the word "Petrus" (which was used for Peter) means a small pebble, while the word "Petra" means a big stone; thus they draw the conclusion that Jesus did not mean He would build His Church on Peter (the small rock), but upon Himself, or possibly Peters earlier confession of faith (the big rock). This explanation is usually accepted with no further questions asked by those listening. But is it true? Lets look and see. We will start by looking up the definitions of the two Greek words Petra and Petrus using the Strong's Concordance.

petra # 4073. - "Fem. of the same as 4074: a (mass of) rock (lit. or fig.): - rock."

Petros # 4074 - "Appar. a Prim. word: a (piece of) rock (larger than 3037):

as a name, Petrus, an apostle: - Peter, rock. comp.2786"

Notice, the definition for Petros (aka Petrus) tells us that it is larger that # 3037. A quick check of the number 3037 in the same concordance takes us to the word "lithos". When looking at the definition for the word lithos we see that it is defined as:

"appar. a prim. word: a stone (lit. or fig.): - (mill -, stumbling) stone.

Notice that "lithos" (#3037) is defined as either a stumbling stone or a millstone. When we read that Petrus is larger that "lithos", it cannot be referring to a stumbling stone, because a stumbling stone does not denote size. Therefore we must understand the comparison to be referring to a millstone. What is a millstone? A millstone is a huge round stone used for crushing grain. "it would be better for him that a millstone be hung around his neck and he be drowned in the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones" (Lk 17:2). As we can see from this verse, a millstone is no small pebble, but a massive stone. According to the definition of the word Petrus (Peter), it is larger than a millstone; therefore Petrus does not mean a small pebble, as many try to claim, but rather it is a massive rock, larger than a millstone.

Why, then, does the Greek text use two different words for rock? The answer is simple. If you notice in the definition of Petra, it says that it is a Feminine word; this is expressed by the "Fem." at the beginning of the definition. The masculine form of the word Petra is the Greek word Petrus. Notice also in the definition of petra #4073, it says that it is the [u]same as #4074[u/] which is Petros. Obviously the writer could not have used a feminine word to describe Peter, therefore he translated it into the masculine form of the same word; thus we have the two words, Petra and Petrus.

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=32728

4evergod3:


YOU ARE MISGUIDED! THIS IS THE SCRIPTURE IN ITS TRUE LIGHT.


[b]Then Jesus answered Peter:

"... thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18

Catholicism contends that the Lord was referring to Peter as the rock, and has since built the entire Catholic religion upon that premise. But all other pertinent Scriptures declare that Jesus was referring to Himself as the rock, not Peter:

"... for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." 1 Corinthians 10:4

Jesus is not only the rock, He is the chief cornerstone of the church:

"And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;" Ephesians 2:20

Back in the Old Testament, it was prophesied that Jesus, whom men rejected, would become the cornerstone of the church:

"The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner." Psalm 118:22

Even Peter, allegedly the first pope, confesses that Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of the church:

"...by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth... This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner." Acts 4:10-11

"... the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner," 1 Peter 2:7

According to Scriptures, Peter is NOT the rock:

"For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God?" Psalm 18:31

"... I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. He is the Rock..." Deuteronomy 32:3-4

"Truly my soul waiteth upon God... He only is my rock..." Psalm 62:1-2

"But the LORD is my defence; and my God is the rock of my refuge." Psalm 94:22

Who is the head of the church

Despite all these Scriptures, Catholicism still claims that Peter was the rock and his successors are the head of the church:

"The sole Church of Christ (is that) which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it... This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successors of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him."

But the Bible declares that Jesus Christ, not Peter or his successors, is the head of the church:

"And he (Christ) is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he (Christ) might have the preeminence." Colossians 1:18

"And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him (Christ) to be the head over all things to the church," Ephesians 1:22

"But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:" Ephesians 4:15

The biblical "church"

When the Bible uses the words "the church," it always refers to all those who trust in Jesus Christ alone for salvation, not just to members of the Catholic church:

"Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord..." 1 Corinthians 1:2

The Apostle Paul wrote:

"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;" Ephesians 5:25

Paul was not a Catholic, yet he knew that Christ loved him and died for him. Certainly, no one would dare say that Paul was not a Christian because he was not a Catholic.

Would anyone suggest that God only loves Catholics?... or that He only died for Catholics? Such would be the case if the Catholic church was the only church.

Paul also proclaimed:

"And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us..." Ephesians 5:2

Can non-Catholics be Christians?

As the "one true church," Catholicism claims the right to determine who is or is not a Christian:

"All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.

In other words, if you have not been baptized into the Catholic church, you are not a Christian. These are not my words, but the words of the official Catholic Catechism.

But according to Scripture, it doesn't matter if the Catholic church has accepted you or not. If your faith is in Jesus Christ alone, then He has already accepted you:

"To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he (Jesus) hath made us accepted in the beloved." Ephesians 1:6

Conclusion

At this point, you must make a few decisions:

Is Peter really the rock? The Catechism says he is, but God's Word says he is not.
Is the Catholic church the one true church? The Catechism says yes, but the Bible says no.
Do you really believe that all non-Catholics will burn in hell?
Once again, the answers to each of these questions will be determined by which you choose to believe... the traditions of men, or God's Word. Jesus asked the Pharisees a question which all Roman Catholics should ponder:

"Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" Matthew 15:3[/b]

This is a gross attempt to twist the bible. Jesus was clearly refering to Peter as the Rock. Read the preceding verses. Also Jesus also said '' I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven.'' Jesus gave this authority to apostle Peter. The complete authority of the Catholic church (including the powers to forgive sins).

frosbel:

Blasphemy !! Mary is not divine.

bros tell am o. maybe he is one of the hipocretes that bow down to mary

chukwudi44:

Another copy and paste from jack cick's website.Can't you ever make up your own rebuttal?it appears you are very intellectually hollow and merely regurgitates gibberish you read on the internet.

Now Peter's name was originally Simon but Jesus changed his name to Peter which means rock.Jesus's portrayal as the chief cornerstone does not in any way vitiate peter's position.Besides all those bible passages you copied from jack chick's website has got nothing to do with mattew 18 other than the mention of the term "rock".

Jesus before he ascended to heaven formally handed over the care of his sheep to st Peter.In the gospel of John ,he thrice asked him to take care of his flock.

Why are you "spamming" the thread?
You quoted and replied "the same thing FOUR TIMES",.....serially!

If you dont have anything else to say, we appreciate your contribution....NOW feck-ooff please!

elampiro:

This is a gross attempt to twist the bible. Jesus was clearly refering to Peter as the Rock. Read the preceding verses. Also Jesus also said '' I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven.'' Jesus gave this authority to apostle Peter. The complete authority of the Catholic church (including the powers to forgive sins).

This is one reason why i prefer preaching tpo a muslim than to a catholic, cos the power of desception on this catholic of a religion is spiritually huge than the entire forces of the whole world.
This people are spiritually blind, prefering to stick to their doctrine of human origin rather than believing the word of God which is plain for anyone with an open mind who want to learn of God's ways, the word of God is not hidden in meaning so you catholics have no escuss whatsoever of believing doctrines of men which has no biblical back ups which the word of God foretold of this happening thousands of years before now - 1Timothy 4:1

1 Now the Holy Spirit tells us [size=15pt] clearly [/size] that in the last
times some will turn away from the true faith; they will
follow deceptive spirits and teachings that come from
demons. 2 These people are hypocrites and liars, and
their consciences are dead. a
3 They will say it is wrong to be married and wrong
to eat certain foods. But God created those foods to be
eaten with thanks by faithful people who know the truth.

joe4christ:

This is one reason why i prefer preaching tpo a muslim than to a catholic, cos the power of desception on this catholic of a religion is spiritually huge than the entire forces of the whole world.
This people are spiritually blind, prefering to stick to their doctrine of human origin rather than believing the word of God which is plain for anyone with an open mind who want to learn of God's ways, the word of God is not hidden in meaning so you catholics have no escuss whatsoever of believing doctrines of men which has no biblical back ups which the word of God foretold of this happening thousands of years before now - 1Timothy 4:1

1 Now the Holy Spirit tells us [size=15pt] clearly [/size] that in the last
times some will turn away from the true faith; they will
follow deceptive spirits and teachings that come from
demons. 2 These people are hypocrites and liars, and
their consciences are dead. a
3 They will say it is wrong to be married and wrong
to eat certain foods. But God created those foods to be
eaten with thanks by faithful people who know the truth.

Do you know that I learnt about the power of deception today? Why? Cos of what you just said, that's deception of the highest order. You try so vividly by qualifying Catholics with a phrase, SPIRITUALLY BLIND and that they have no conscience, now tell me, have you ever asked yourself if you have a conscience? Have you ever asked yourself that upon all the SHOW OFF Christianity that the lots of you display, that are you really a Christian that despicts the greatest LAW of christianity, which is LOVE and do you follow in the footsteps of Christ ? If you can answer all these, then you'll know what deception truely means and you'll come to realise that before you criticise and judge others, you'll have to look at your own SELF, before you judge other Churches as not being in the true Faith and DEMONIC as well you'll have to look deep into the foundation of your own church and know whether it's of the TRUE FAITH and whether it's not DEMONIC or not. But no, you wouldn't do that, why? Cos if you cant convince someone who is STRONG in his/her FAITH to stray and join you blindly then you'll dub it DECEPTIVENESS. My dear, am not speaking in favour of anyone here, but before you talk, check out the real meaning of DECEPTION, and do me a favour, when next you write, include the name of your church, at least it helps to know where your critics come from. Thanks and God bless.

joe4christ:

This is one reason why i prefer preaching tpo a muslim than to a catholic, cos the power of desception on this catholic of a religion is spiritually huge than the entire forces of the whole world.
This people are spiritually blind, prefering to stick to their doctrine of human origin rather than believing the word of God which is plain for anyone with an open mind who want to learn of God's ways, the word of God is not hidden in meaning so you catholics have no escuss whatsoever of believing doctrines of men which has no biblical back ups which the word of God foretold of this happening thousands of years before now - 1Timothy 4:1

1 Now the Holy Spirit tells us [size=15pt] clearly [/size] that in the last
times some will turn away from the true faith; they will
follow deceptive spirits and teachings that come from
demons. 2 These people are hypocrites and liars, and
their consciences are dead. a
3 They will say it is wrong to be married and wrong
to eat certain foods. But God created those foods to be
eaten with thanks by faithful people who know the truth.

Yes, in the last days or end time fake churches will abound. I am sure you know the Catholic church is the first and dates back to the apostles, hence it is not among the latter churches. The catholic church existed 1500 years before Luther rebeled. What makes you think the pentecostal churches which are just 20-100 years old are preaching the truth? If you are thinking of fake churches, look at the new generation churches preaching money. They are the confused last day churches misleading souls.
Lastly, the Catholic church have celibrate priests (not married). Read Mathew 19:12 ''for some are eunuchs from birth, some were made eunuchs by men, and there are some who made themselves eunuch for the sake of the kingdom. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.'' The catholic church doesn't force anyone, but those who feel called are welcome. This is scripture and it is so complete in catholism.

joe4christ:

This is one reason why i prefer preaching tpo a muslim than to a catholic, cos the power of desception on this catholic of a religion is spiritually huge than the entire forces of the whole world.
This people are spiritually blind, prefering to stick to their doctrine of human origin rather than believing the word of God which is plain for anyone with an open mind who want to learn of God's ways, the word of God is not hidden in meaning so you catholics have no escuss whatsoever of believing doctrines of men which has no biblical back ups which the word of God foretold of this happening thousands of years before now - 1Timothy 4:1

1 Now the Holy Spirit tells us [size=15pt] clearly [/size] that in the last
times some will turn away from the true faith; they will
follow deceptive spirits and teachings that come from
demons. 2 These people are hypocrites and liars, and
their consciences are dead. a
3 They will say it is wrong to be married and wrong
to eat certain foods. But God created those foods to be
eaten with thanks by faithful people who know the truth.

Yes, in the last days or end time fake churches will abound. I am sure you know the Catholic church is the first and dates back to the apostles, hence it is not among the latter churches. The catholic church existed 1500 years before Luther rebeled. What makes you think the pentecostal churches which are just 20-100 years old are preaching the truth? If you are thinking of fake churches, look at the new generation churches preaching money. They are the confused last day churches misleading souls.
Lastly, the Catholic church have celibrate priests (not married). Read Mathew 19:12 ''for some are eunuchs from birth, some were made eunuchs by men, and there are some who made themselves eunuch for the sake of the kingdom. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.'' The catholic church doesn't force anyone, but those who feel called are welcome. This is scripture and it is so complete in catholism.

joe4christ:

This is one reason why i prefer preaching tpo a muslim than to a catholic, cos the power of desception on this catholic of a religion is spiritually huge than the entire forces of the whole world.
This people are spiritually blind, prefering to stick to their doctrine of human origin rather than believing the word of God which is plain for anyone with an open mind who want to learn of God's ways, the word of God is not hidden in meaning so you catholics have no escuss whatsoever of believing doctrines of men which has no biblical back ups which the word of God foretold of this happening thousands of years before now - 1Timothy 4:1

1 Now the Holy Spirit tells us [size=15pt] clearly [/size] that in the last
times some will turn away from the true faith; they will
follow deceptive spirits and teachings that come from
demons. 2 These people are hypocrites and liars, and
their consciences are dead. a
3 They will say it is wrong to be married and wrong
to eat certain foods. But God created those foods to be
eaten with thanks by faithful people who know the truth.

Yes, in the last days or end time fake churches will abound. I am sure you know the Catholic church is the first and dates back to the apostles, hence it is not among the latter churches. The catholic church existed 1500 years before Luther rebeled. What makes you think the pentecostal churches which are just 20-100 years old are preaching the truth? If you are thinking of fake churches, look at the new generation churches preaching money. They are the confused last day churches misleading souls.
Lastly, the Catholic church have celibrate priests (not married). Read Mathew 19:12 ''for some are eunuchs from birth, some were made eunuchs by men, and there are some who made themselves eunuch for the sake of the kingdom. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.'' The catholic church doesn't force anyone, but those who feel called are welcome. This is scripture and it is so complete in catholism.

elampiro:

Yes, in the last days or end time fake churches will abound

The catholic church is the HEAD of all FALSE CHURCHES - Fact !

I am sure you know the Catholic church is the first and dates back to the apostles, hence it is not among the latter churches.

Wrong , the catholic church does not date back to the apostles , rather it dates back to the beginning of this apostasy in the later part of the 2nd century and became more pronounced during the reign of Emperor Constantine.

The catholic church was formed as a compromise between state and fallen Christian leaders , it was a mixture of paganism and half-truths.

The catholic church existed 1500 years before Luther rebeled.

Indeed and Luther did the right thing.

When a church start selling indulgences for the forgiveness of sins, what do you call that , of course a false church.

Besides the Catholic church started the crusades , contrary to scripture , and killed untold numbers of Jews and Muslims , in many cases after they had surrendered.

This Harlot church also started the inquisitions, a troubling time when so called heretics like William Tyndale , the translator of the bible into English and many others, were tortured using methods only SATAN could have invented.

What makes you think the pentecostal churches which are just 20-100 years old are preaching the truth? If you are thinking of fake churches, look at the new generation churches preaching money. They are the confused last day churches misleading souls.

They are daughters of the Mother Church , the Harlot par excellence. The prosperity churches learnt how to con their members from the catholic church.

Lastly, the Catholic church have celibrate priests (not married). Read Mathew 19:12 ''for some are eunuchs from birth, some were made eunuchs by men, and there are some who made themselves eunuch for the sake of the kingdom. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.''

"They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth." - 1 Timothy 4:3

The catholic church doesn't force anyone, but those who feel called are welcome. This is scripture and it is so complete in catholism.

No, the catholic church does not adhere to scripture , they follow tradition and paganism.

Sorry to be so blatant about the truth.

frosbel:

The catholic church is the HEAD of all FALSE CHURCHES - Fact !

Baseless allegation.

frosbel:
Wrong , the catholic church does not date back to the apostles , rather it dates back to the beginning of this apostasy in the later part of the 2nd century and became more pronounced during the reign of Emperor Constantine.

Baseless allegation.

frosbel:
The catholic church was formed as a compromise between state and fallen Christian leaders , it was a mixture of paganism and half-truths.

Baseless allegation

frosbel:
Indeed and Luther did the right thing.

When a church start selling indulgences for the forgiveness of sins, what do you call that , of course a false church.

Baseless allegation. Besides, Christ never said his Church would do no wrong. He said, "the gates of hell will not prevail against it... No conditions attached!

frosbel:
Besides the Catholic church started the crusades , contrary to scripture , and killed untold numbers of Jews and Muslims , in many cases after they had surrendered.

You might want to provide evidence of all you said.

frosbel:
This Harlot church also started the inquisitions, a troubling time when so called heretics like William Tyndale , the translator of the bible into English and many others, were tortured using methods only SATAN could have invented.

Baseless allegations.

frosbel:
They are daughters of the Mother Church , the Harlot par excellence. The prosperity churches learnt how to con their members from the catholic church.

Baseless allegations.

frosbel:
"They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth." - 1 Timothy 4:3

...And they wed thousands of couples every week. I am a Catholic and no one has ever ordered me to abstain from any food.

Baseless allegation.

frosbel:
No, the catholic church does not adhere to scripture , they follow tradition and paganism.

Sorry to be so blatant about the truth.

You are only blatant about the lies. The Catholic Church adheres to the scripture that it compiled and canonized. By the way, you only call it scripture because the Catholic Church declared it so.

By yourself, you dont know what is or isnt scripture.

And by the way, you havent told us what you term, Christ's true Church.

sharp_shap: Why should I confess to a mere mortal man who is not even sure if he is going to make heaven? That's bullshit

you should confess to a mortal because the bible says so, and more specifically u should confess to a priest because God has given them the power to tell you 'you are forgiven'.

shanicemel: pls only God will hear our confessions and forgive us, no man or priest should even listen to your confession.

it seems you have never read the bible, or did you miss the passages that were quoted?

I find you post totally insultive and ignorant.

the planmaker: Well d poster most likely is α jehovah's witness because of his style of interpretation. But 4 points about the catholics shud stand out.
1) Dey hav no regards 4 d bible

this is a very big lie, im sure you cant prove it, i can provide you over 200 church documents that prove you wrong, please make research.

2) They hold church traditions and belief (tradition of men) higher than d bible

another lie, sacred tradition, simply put are the teaching of the apostles that has been passed down, and the bible makes it clear that any good christian must hold those tradition, it seem you dont read your bible.

3)The pope is α semi god to them

another lie, the pope simply put is the bishop of rome and his work is to support the servants of God, that is why he is called 'servant of the servants of God'. Make research and stop using hearsay.

4)Almost all their doctrines can be traced to roman pagan or pre christian origin,which r in direct conflict wit d bible
So its futile arguing bible truths with α catholic,

the only reason it would be futile debating the scriptures with a catholic is because you are not qualified.

4evergod3: The answer to all this in the study of the word of God. The bible clearly answers this question. The issue now is if Catholics [who are the reason for this topic] actually study the bible in the true light.

HEBREWS CHAPTER 4 BELOW ANSWERS THIS QUESTION.

1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.

2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.

5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.

6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:

7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.

[b]8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.

11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

[/b]

my dear friend this verse isnt against the catholic church.

frosbel:


"But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." Matthew 5:22

I guess you have some confession to make to your priest for calling me a FOOL , just make sure he has received clearance from the child molestation squad

it seems you didnt read my previous posts, the sacraments are not dependent upon the holiness of the priests.

Willzkid:
where the early apostles catholic priests?

ofcourse

Jesus left his church in the hands of jewish men, how did the church become ROMAN catholic?

it seems you missed it when the bible shows how the gospel was brought to rome. Besides the my church is called 'the catholic church' the word roman was around the 18th century used to differentiate her from anglicans wu claimed to be catholic.

Ask ursef these questions before bringing in emotional arguments

my dear friend all my points are well considered.

This is the biggest fairy tale of the century.

Redhot111: as 4 y d Roman catholics were unable 2 infiltrate d Bible with their doctrines is dis; The bible, though originaly written in hebrew n greek language respectively late came out 2 b in latin language though latin ws no longer popular. So d priest wld read it n tell d congregation wat dey(priest) want d congregation 2 bliv cos den latin ws already a dead language n only e few pple understand it. So dey didnt change it cos dey felt it ws needless since pple dnt understand it.

this is ignorance, catholic didnt have anything to do with infiltrating the bible and the most common language then in europe was latin because it was the official language of an empire, to claim that when the bible couldnt be understood in latin in ancient times is ignorance.

But i will say it ws God's makin cos b4 long some persons like martin luther, john wycliff, jerome etc started translatin d uncompromised bible in2 our present day languages, english in particular.

hahahahaha, what a joke, the latin bible you just insulted was translated by st jerome, incase you dont know jerome was alive before the church canonise the bible and it is an insult to rank Jerome and matin luther together.

D pope n priest fought against dis fiercely 2 an extent dat dey manipulated d powers dat b n possession of a bible became a capital offence punishable by death either by hanging or being burnt in d open 2 serve as deterant 2 odas who may own a copy. At a tym dey disposed of over 2million copies of d bible in d red sea cos since it ws 2 late 2 change sum of its content dia aim nw ws 2 wipe away d word of God in its entirety.

hahaha, another lie, the states punished production of unauthorised bibles, it was a capital crime. Nobody was prosecuted for lawfully owning or lawfully traslating the bibles, all adulterated bibles were distroyed.

But who can fight against God n overcum. But through human instruments, by divine encouragement God still preserved his words.
Not withstanding wen d sin still weighs u down with guilt as a young bliver, tellin a friend(not neccessarily a priest) cld help lift ur spirit.

this is ignorance, the bible would have been long lost, if God hadnt used the catholic church to preserve it, it is a pity you have wrong information.

sammaking:
"Confess ya fault one to another"
This simply means "Acknowledge ya faults, show remose ( say im sorry) n repent from it". Among you

hypocrite, that passage said confess, it seems you missed it, do you obey ur bible? Do you confess to another?

jenny b: me tink thers no prblm in confessin ur sin to a man weda a priest or anybody as long as both of u will join faith togeda and pray for forgivenes, d bible says we shuld confess our sins one to another, now my problm is d contuinty in dis cofession to d priest cos if u knw u r truely sorry for a particular sin why go bak to it? true confession is repentance and desistance. thers a problem with dis kind of confession.

actually there is no problem with it, by confession you make a promise to God that with the help of his grace you will not commit those sins again, those who donot mean this promise, lack an essential thing called 'contrition and amendment' the absense of the above may render a confession invalid, the same applies to those who lie in confession.

frosbel: The concept of confession of sin to a priest is nowhere taught in Scripture. First, the New Testament does not teach that there are to be priests in the New Covenant. Instead, the New Testament teaches that all believers are priests. 1 Peter 2:5-9 describes believers as a “holy priesthood” and a “royal priesthood.” Revelation 1:6 and 5:10 both describe believers as “a kingdom and priests.” In the Old Covenant, the faithful had to approach God through the priests. The priests were mediators between the people and God. The priests offered sacrifices to God on behalf of the people. That is no longer necessary. Because of Jesus’ sacrifice, we can now approach God’s throne with boldness (Hebrews 4:16). The temple veil tearing in two at Jesus’ death was symbolic of the dividing wall between God and humanity being destroyed. We can approach God directly, ourselves, without the use of a human mediator. Why? Because Jesus Christ is our great High Priest (Hebrews 4:14-15; 10:21), and the only mediator between us and God (1 Timothy 2:5). The New Testament teaches that there are to be elders (1 Timothy 3), deacons (1 Timothy 3), bishops (Titus 1:6-9), and pastors (Ephesians 4:11) – but not priests.

When it comes to confession of sin, believers are told in 1 John 1:9 to confess their sins to God. God is faithful and just to forgive our sins as we confess them to Him. James 5:16 speaks of confessing our trespasses “to one another,” but this is not the same as confessing sins to a priest as the Roman Catholic Church teaches. Priests / church leaders are nowhere mentioned in the context of James 5:16. Further, James 5:16 does not link forgiveness of sins with the confession of sins “to one another.”

The Roman Catholic Church bases their practice of confession to a priest primarily on Catholic tradition. Catholic do point to John 20:23, “If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." From this verse, Catholics claim that God gave the apostles the authority to forgive sins, and that authority was passed on to the successors of the apostles, e.g. the bishops and priests of the Roman Catholic Church. There are several problems with this interpretation. (1) John 20:23 nowhere mentions confession of sin. (2) John 20:23 nowhere promises, or even hints, that the authority to forgive sins would be passed on to the successors of the apostles. Jesus’ promise was specifically directed to the apostles. (3) The New Testament nowhere states that the apostles would even have successors to their apostolic authority. Similarly, Catholics point to Matthew 16:19 and 18:18 (binding and loosing) as evidence for the Catholic Church’s authority to forgive sins. The same three above points apply equally to these Scriptures.

Again, the concept of confession of sin to a priest is nowhere taught in Scripture. We are to confess our sins to God (1 John 1:9). As New Covenant believers, we do not need mediators between us and God. We can go to God directly because of Jesus’ sacrifice for us. 1 Timothy 2:5, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”


Got Questions

all you questions on the priesthood has been answered here: www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PRIEST3.HTM

4evergod3:




If the Bible was given to us by the Catholic church then why is the same people against their teachings? Read below;

1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).
2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11).
5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).
7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).
8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as "father"? (Matt. 23:9).
9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11).
10. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).
11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).
13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).
14. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?

if you wanted an answer you would have asked one question at a time, but it seems you aim is to critisize. I would gladly answer ur questions if you can ask on at a time, learn before you critisize.

4evergod3:


The catholic church never decided the books of the bible. If the Bible is a Catholic book, why does it nowhere mention the Catholic Church? Why is there no mention of a pope, a cardinal, an archbishop, a parish priest, a nun, or a member of any other Catholic order? If the Bible is a Catholic book, why is auricular confession, indulgences, prayers to the saints, adoration of Mary, veneration of relics and images, and many other rites and ceremonies of the Catholic Church, left out of it?

If the Bible is a Catholic book, how can Catholics account for the passage, "A bishop then, must be blameless, married but once, reserved, prudent, of good conduct, hospitable, a teacher...He should rule well his own household, keeping his children under control and perfectly respectful. For if a man cannot rule his own household, how is he to take care of the church of God?" (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5). The Catholic Church does not allow a bishop to marry, while the Bible says "he must be married."

In addition to the above, Catholics often boast that the Bible was written by Catholics, e.g., "All the books of the New Testament were written by Catholics." When we consider the word "catholic" as meaning "universal," we readily admit that the writers were "catholic" in that sense; they were members of the church universal--the church of Christ which is described in the New Testament Scriptures (Col. 1:18; Rom. 16:16). However, we firmly deny that the writers of the New Testament were members of the Roman Catholic Church as we know it today. The Roman Catholic Church was not fully developed until several hundred years after the New Testament was written. It is not the same institution as disclosed in the New Testament. The New Testament books were written by members of the Lord's church, but they are not its author. God Himself is the author of the New Testament.

The Catholic officials above claim that without the Catholic Church there would be no Bible; they argue that mankind can accept the Scriptures only on the basis of the Catholic Church which gathered the books and determined which were inspired. Surely the Catholic Church cannot claim that it gave us the Old Testament Scriptures. The Old Testament came through the Jews (God's chosen people of old) who had the holy oracles entrusted to them. Paul said, "What advantage then remains to the Jew, or what is the use of circumcision? Much in every respect. First, indeed, because the oracles of God were entrusted to them." (Rom. 3:1-2; see also Rom. 9:4-5; Acts 7:38 ).

The Old Testament books were gathered into one volume and were translated from Hebrew into Greek long before Christ came to earth. The Septuagint Version was translated by seventy scholars at Alexandria, Egypt around the year 227 B.C., and this was the version Christ and His apostles used. Christ did not tell the people, as Catholics do today, that they could accept the Scriptures only on the basis of the authority of those who gathered them and declared them to be inspired. He urged the people of His day to follow the Old Testament Scriptures as the infallible guide, not because man or any group of men has sanctioned them as such, but because they came from God. Furthermore, He understood that God-fearing men and women would be able to discern by evidence (external and internal) which books were of God and which were not; thus, He never raised questions and doubts concerning the gathering of the inspired books.

please dont be ignorant, the word 'bible' cant even be found it the bible, so only a stupidman will be angry if he cant find the word 'catholic church' in d bible. And go and learn history, it is a fact that the church canonised the scriptures in the council of hippo. Make research before you critisize.

4evergod3: [b]Does Catholicism still teach that it is the one true Church founded by Christ? Many think not, but there is no denying the church's official position:

"This is the sole Church of Christ, which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic." Pg. 214, #811

Referring to the Catholic church, the Catechism pronounces:

"In fact, in this one and only Church of God..." Pg. 216, #817

"First, the Church is catholic because Christ is present in her. Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church." Pg. 220, #830

This "one true church" doctrine can be traced to one verse of Scripture, which, when compared with other Scriptures, is found not to teach this doctrine at all. When Jesus asked his disciples who He was, Peter responded:

"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. Matthew 16:16"

Then Jesus answered Peter:

"... thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18

Catholicism contends that the Lord was referring to Peter as the rock, and has since built the entire Catholic religion upon that premise. But all other pertinent Scriptures declare that Jesus was referring to Himself as the rock, not Peter:

"... for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." 1 Corinthians 10:4

Jesus is not only the rock, He is the chief cornerstone of the church:

"And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;" Ephesians 2:20

Back in the Old Testament, it was prophesied that Jesus, whom men rejected, would become the cornerstone of the church:

"The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner." Psalm 118:22

Even Peter, allegedly the first pope, confesses that Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of the church:

"...by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth... This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner." Acts 4:10-11

"... the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner," 1 Peter 2:7

According to Scriptures, Peter is NOT the rock:

"For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God?" Psalm 18:31

"... I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. He is the Rock..." Deuteronomy 32:3-4

"Truly my soul waiteth upon God... He only is my rock..." Psalm 62:1-2

"But the LORD is my defence; and my God is the rock of my refuge." Psalm 94:22

Who is the head of the church

Despite all these Scriptures, Catholicism still claims that Peter was the rock and his successors are the head of the church:

"The sole Church of Christ (is that) which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it... This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successors of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him." Pg. 215, #816

But the Bible declares that Jesus Christ, not Peter or his successors, is the head of the church:

"And he (Christ) is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he (Christ) might have the preeminence." Colossians 1:18

"And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him (Christ) to be the head over all things to the church," Ephesians 1:22

"But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:" Ephesians 4:15

The biblical "church"

When the Bible uses the words "the church," it always refers to all those who trust in Jesus Christ alone for salvation, not just to members of the Catholic church:

"Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord..." 1 Corinthians 1:2

The Apostle Paul wrote:

"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;" Ephesians 5:25

Paul was not a Catholic, yet he knew that Christ loved him and died for him. Certainly, no one would dare say that Paul was not a Christian because he was not a Catholic.

Would anyone suggest that God only loves Catholics?... or that He only died for Catholics? Such would be the case if the Catholic church was the only church.

Paul also proclaimed:

"And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us..." Ephesians

do you even have a copy of the cathechism? You are simply misinterpreting it. Please present one point and one quote at a time and i will give you the full context. Nothing makes me more angry than a liar.

mollie12: I've just been reading comments and I'm so weak.

So Catholics actually open and read their bibles Wow. How someone can see how antichrist and satanic their religious system is and still remain in it is a HUGE mystery for me.

Catholics, just face up to the facts - a lot of your doctrines are highly unbiblical. And stop trying to point out specks in other denominations - every Christian with his/her brain rightly screwed on knows the churchworld is in a big mess. But your denomination will have to take the greatest blame because its been around the longest.

For those smirking about the bible being in the charge of the RCC and other christians having to feed on their dirt, well I'll let you know God is powerful enough to keep His Word pure and preserved- even in the care of corrupt persons. Before Christ came, the Israelites, and the books of the Old Testament by extension, were captured and put under the control of Babylonians, Assyrians (I think) and Grecians. Yet when Jesus Christ came he freely made reference to these texts, giving us a clear sign that they were still intact.

Catholics, my heart bleeds for you all! I was part of that system for a short period of time, but even as a child (which I was then) a lot of things didn't add up scripturally for me and I left. Its not about who's wrong or right - practically every denomination has its own shred of CRAZY, but having it SO entrenched and going as far as to use eternity to back it up (saying the rest of us are LOST) is just too much! And this is not exonerating the other churches. Especially Pentecostals - a lot of you guys need Jesus - the real one! Please lay off all the foolishness masquerading as spirituality in your congregations.

Please, just please, make up your mind to love God - love Him more than anything else - and let Him lead you in His truth. Human understanding will so fail you - you can whip up all the historical texts you want to prove that you guys are the real deal (and you'll probably have an edge there since the system is so old) but if God says its not of Him, it simply isn't. And its best to make that discovery on this side of eternity. God bless.

i think you have placed you sympathy in the wrong place. I read my bible well, any catholic who understand the teaching of the church will agree that the church never contradicts scripture. To be sincere, my heart goes out to you too, you can see the truth but you just cant recognise and accept it.

@italo, i saw that you posted a thread from catholic answers, i have been in the forums for some months now. If you are there too pls give me your username, i'll like to send you a request.

ijawkid:

Jesus didn't also assume d power to forgive sins or judge people or condemn people.....

He was also given that power from a higher source........

The final point is both d priests and Jesus forgive sins.............

Look up italo's words he quoted from d scriptures.....mayb I can re-quote them....

""John 20:21 - before He grants them
the authority to forgive sins, Jesus says
to the apostles, "as the Father sent
me, so I send you." As Christ was sent
by the Father to forgive sins, so Christ
sends the apostles and their successors
to forgive sins""...

Do u now see what I mean

Its a chain........

Indeed it is a chain I seee...as God sent christ to die for our sins, so he has sent u to die for our sins too indeed ! Mtcheeww wot a chain u see wot I mean, so wen are u goin 2 die for d sins of mankind??

Ubenedictus: for you it is wrong and yet james say u should confess ur sins to another. Y do u tink Jesus gave the church the power to 4give sins? So they shouldnt use the power?

Where in d bible did christ gave the church power 2 forgive sins? When readin d bible, pls don't pick a particular verse to interprete, read d whole chapter and if possible d sorrounding chapters to get a grasp of the full stories

maryswags:

Where in d bible did christ gave the church power 2 forgive sins? When readin d bible, pls don't pick a particular verse to interprete, read d whole chapter and if possible d sorrounding chapters to get a grasp of the full stories

wow!!! Surprise surprise did u miss the part in john when Jesus said, 'whatsoever u forgive are forgiven' or are u trying to ignore it? Or u saying that those word of christ shouldnt be? Oh!! Or are u just biased because your church doesnt and cannot use the power christ gave to forgive sin? It seems u find it very hard to accept the truth.

THE INDISPENSABLE TRUTH FOR TODAY !!! (2 COR. 4:6-17; MATT. 16:24-27) http://credoexperience..com/2014/07/the-indispensable-truth-for-today-2-cor.html