Is Peter the rock on which the Church is built? Not according to God's word
Dec 5, 2018 12:47:00 #
"A stone is movable, unstable; and this is exactly what we see with Peter, who doubted when he walked on water, who denied Jesus, and who was rebuked by Paul at Antioch."
The Roman Catholic Church Puts a great deal of emphasis on Peter and claims that Jesus said he would build his church on him.
Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Our Lord then declared to him: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it." Christ, the "living Stone," thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 552).
"By the word "rock" the Saviour cannot have meant Himself, but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for "Peter" and "rock." His statement then admits of but one explanation, namely, that He wishes to make Peter the head of the whole community of those who believed in Him as the true Messias; that through this foundation (Peter) the Kingdom of Christ would be unconquerable; that the spiritual guidance of the faithful was placed in the hands of Peter, as the special representative of Christ." (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm).
The scripture reference to which the Roman Catholic Church attempts to substantiate its position is found in Matt. 16:18. Here it is in context.
"Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He began asking His disciples, saying, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. 15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. 19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." 20 Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ," (Matt. 16:13-20).
There are problems with the Roman Catholic position. First of all, when we look at the Greek of Matthew 16:18, we see something that is not obvious in the English. "...you are Peter (πέτρος, petros) and upon this rock (πέτρα, petra) I will build My church..." In Greek nouns have gender. It is similar to the English words actor and actress. The first is masculine, and the second is feminine. Likewise, the Greek word "petros" is masculine; "petra" is feminine. Peter, the man, is appropriately referred to as Petros. But Jesus said that the rock he would build his church on was not the masculine "petros" but the feminine "petra." Let me illustrate by using the words "actor" and "actress:" "You are the actor; and with this actress, I will make my movie." Do see that the gender influences how a sentence is understood? Jesus was not saying that the church will be built upon Peter but upon something else. What, then, does petra, the feminine noun, refer to?
The feminine "petra" occurs four times in the Greek New Testament:
Matt. 16:18, "And I also say to you that you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it."
Matt. 27:60, "and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock (petra); and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away."
1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."
1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."
We can clearly see that in the three other uses of the Greek word petra (nominative singular; "petras" in 1 Cor. 10:4 is genitive singular) we find it referred to as a large immovable mass of rock in which a tomb is carved out (Matt. 27:60) and in reference to Christ (1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Pet. 2:8). Note that Peter himself in the last verse referred to petra as being Jesus! If Peter uses the word as a reference to Jesus, then shouldn't we?
In addition, Greek dictionaries and lexicons give us further insight into the two Greek words under discussion:
Petros:
Petros, "πέτρος, a stone, distinguished from πέτρα (Source: Liddell, H., 1996. A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English lexicon (636). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.).
Petros, Πέτρος, Peter, meaning stone. The masc. of the fem. pétra (4073), a massive rock or cliff.” (Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament, electronic ed., G4074, Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2000, c1992, c1993).
Petros, Πέτρος, “a noun akin to 4073, used as a proper name; “a stone” or “a boulder,” Peter, one of the twelve apostles:— Peter(150), Peter’s(5).” (Robert L. Thomas, New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries : Updated Edition, H8674, Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1998, 1981).
Petra:
Petra, πέτρα , Ion. and Ep. πέτρη, , a rock, a ledge or shelf of rock, Od. 2. a rock, i.e. a rocky peak or ridge . . . Properly, πέτρα is a fixed rock, πέτρος a stone." (Source: Liddell, H. (1996). A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English lexicon (636). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.).
Petra, πέτρα , (4073) denotes a mass of rock, as distinct from petros, a detached stone or boulder, or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved." Source: Vine, W., & Bruce, F. (1981; Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996). Vine's Expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words (2:302). Old Tappan NJ: Revell)
Petra, πέτρα, ας, ἡ (1) literally, living rock, bedrock (MT 7.24), in contrast to πέτρος (isolated stone); (Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg and Neva F. Miller, vol. 4, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, Baker's Greek New Testament library, 311, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2000).
Petra, πέτρα, noun feminine; ≡ bedrock, (James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains : Greek (New Testament), electronic ed., GGK4376 (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).
Petros & Petros
πέτρα petra; a prim. word; a (large mass of) rock:--rock(10), rocks(3), rocky(2). Πέτρος Petros, “a noun akin to 4073, used as a proper name; “a stone” or “a boulder,” Peter, one of the twelve apostles:— Peter(150), Peter’s(5).” (Robert L. Thomas, New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries : Updated Edition, H8674, Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1998, 1981).
"On this rock (ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ). The word is feminine, and means a rock, as distinguished from a stone or a fragment of rock (πέτρος, above)." (Marvin Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, 1:91, Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2002).
Petros, "πέτρος, a stone, distinguished from πέτρα. Petra, πέτρα , Ion. and Ep. πέτρη, , a rock, a ledge or shelf of rock, Od. 2. a rock, i.e. a rocky peak or ridge . . . Properly, πέτρα is a fixed rock, πέτρος a stone." (Source: Liddell, H. (1996). A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English lexicon (636). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.).
A stone is movable, unstable; and this is exactly what we see with Peter, who doubted when he walked on water, who denied Jesus, and who was rebuked by Paul at Antioch.
Matt. 14:29-30, "And Peter got out of the boat, and walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30 But seeing the wind, he became afraid, and beginning to sink, he cried out, saying, "Lord, save me!"
Luke 22:57-58, "But he denied it, saying, "Woman, I do not know Him." 58 And a little later, another saw him and said, "You are one of them too!" But Peter said, "Man, I am not!"
Gal. 2:11,14 "But when Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned . . . 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"
Jesus, who knew the heart of Peter, was not saying that Peter, the movable and unstable stone, would be the immovable rock upon which the Church would be built. Rather, it would be built upon Jesus; and it was this truth that Peter had affirmed what he said to Jesus, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," (Matt. 16:16). This is consistent with scripture elsewhere where the term rock is sometimes used in reference to God but never of a man.
Deut. 32:4, "The Rock! His work is perfect, for all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice."
2 Sam. 22:2-3, "The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer; 3 My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge."
Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."
Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."
It should be obvious from the Word of God that the rock Jesus was referring to was not Peter--but himself.
The Aramaic Kepha
In contrast to this, in paragraph #2 at the beginning of this article, the Roman Catholic Church says that the rock cannot refer to Jesus "but only Peter--as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for 'Peter' and 'rock.'" The problem is that the text is not in Aramaic--but Greek. Since we do not have the Aramaic text, it is not proper to refer to it as proof of the Roman Catholic position. We have to ask ourselves why the Roman Catholic Church would resort to using something that we don't have: the Aramaic text. Is it because their argument is not supported by the Greek, and so they must infer something from a text we don't possess?
Furthermore, in John 1:42 it says, "He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas," (which is translated Peter)." The word "Peter" here is petros--not petra. It is used to elucidate the Aramaic kephas which is not a name in Aramaic.
"Except in Jn. 1:42, where it is used to elucidate Aramaic kēphás, Pétros is used in the NT only as a name for Simon Peter . . . The translation supports the view that Kēphás is not a proper name, since one does not usually translate proper names"1
Jesus is the rock on which the church is built
The truth is that the only foundation is Jesus. The only rock of truth is Jesus Christ; and that we, as his redeemed, need to keep our eyes on him. We are to look to no one else as the foundation, the source, or the hope on which the church is built. The Church is built upon Jesus--not Peter.
"For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ," (1 Cor. 3:11).
https://carm.org/is-peter-the-rock
The Roman Catholic Church Puts a great deal of emphasis on Peter and claims that Jesus said he would build his church on him.
Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Our Lord then declared to him: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it." Christ, the "living Stone," thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 552).
"By the word "rock" the Saviour cannot have meant Himself, but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for "Peter" and "rock." His statement then admits of but one explanation, namely, that He wishes to make Peter the head of the whole community of those who believed in Him as the true Messias; that through this foundation (Peter) the Kingdom of Christ would be unconquerable; that the spiritual guidance of the faithful was placed in the hands of Peter, as the special representative of Christ." (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm).
The scripture reference to which the Roman Catholic Church attempts to substantiate its position is found in Matt. 16:18. Here it is in context.
"Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He began asking His disciples, saying, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. 15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. 19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." 20 Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ," (Matt. 16:13-20).
There are problems with the Roman Catholic position. First of all, when we look at the Greek of Matthew 16:18, we see something that is not obvious in the English. "...you are Peter (πέτρος, petros) and upon this rock (πέτρα, petra) I will build My church..." In Greek nouns have gender. It is similar to the English words actor and actress. The first is masculine, and the second is feminine. Likewise, the Greek word "petros" is masculine; "petra" is feminine. Peter, the man, is appropriately referred to as Petros. But Jesus said that the rock he would build his church on was not the masculine "petros" but the feminine "petra." Let me illustrate by using the words "actor" and "actress:" "You are the actor; and with this actress, I will make my movie." Do see that the gender influences how a sentence is understood? Jesus was not saying that the church will be built upon Peter but upon something else. What, then, does petra, the feminine noun, refer to?
The feminine "petra" occurs four times in the Greek New Testament:
Matt. 16:18, "And I also say to you that you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it."
Matt. 27:60, "and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock (petra); and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away."
1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."
1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."
We can clearly see that in the three other uses of the Greek word petra (nominative singular; "petras" in 1 Cor. 10:4 is genitive singular) we find it referred to as a large immovable mass of rock in which a tomb is carved out (Matt. 27:60) and in reference to Christ (1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Pet. 2:8). Note that Peter himself in the last verse referred to petra as being Jesus! If Peter uses the word as a reference to Jesus, then shouldn't we?
In addition, Greek dictionaries and lexicons give us further insight into the two Greek words under discussion:
Petros:
Petros, "πέτρος, a stone, distinguished from πέτρα (Source: Liddell, H., 1996. A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English lexicon (636). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.).
Petros, Πέτρος, Peter, meaning stone. The masc. of the fem. pétra (4073), a massive rock or cliff.” (Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament, electronic ed., G4074, Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2000, c1992, c1993).
Petros, Πέτρος, “a noun akin to 4073, used as a proper name; “a stone” or “a boulder,” Peter, one of the twelve apostles:— Peter(150), Peter’s(5).” (Robert L. Thomas, New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries : Updated Edition, H8674, Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1998, 1981).
Petra:
Petra, πέτρα , Ion. and Ep. πέτρη, , a rock, a ledge or shelf of rock, Od. 2. a rock, i.e. a rocky peak or ridge . . . Properly, πέτρα is a fixed rock, πέτρος a stone." (Source: Liddell, H. (1996). A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English lexicon (636). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.).
Petra, πέτρα , (4073) denotes a mass of rock, as distinct from petros, a detached stone or boulder, or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved." Source: Vine, W., & Bruce, F. (1981; Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996). Vine's Expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words (2:302). Old Tappan NJ: Revell)
Petra, πέτρα, ας, ἡ (1) literally, living rock, bedrock (MT 7.24), in contrast to πέτρος (isolated stone); (Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg and Neva F. Miller, vol. 4, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, Baker's Greek New Testament library, 311, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2000).
Petra, πέτρα, noun feminine; ≡ bedrock, (James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains : Greek (New Testament), electronic ed., GGK4376 (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).
Petros & Petros
πέτρα petra; a prim. word; a (large mass of) rock:--rock(10), rocks(3), rocky(2). Πέτρος Petros, “a noun akin to 4073, used as a proper name; “a stone” or “a boulder,” Peter, one of the twelve apostles:— Peter(150), Peter’s(5).” (Robert L. Thomas, New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries : Updated Edition, H8674, Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1998, 1981).
"On this rock (ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ). The word is feminine, and means a rock, as distinguished from a stone or a fragment of rock (πέτρος, above)." (Marvin Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, 1:91, Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2002).
Petros, "πέτρος, a stone, distinguished from πέτρα. Petra, πέτρα , Ion. and Ep. πέτρη, , a rock, a ledge or shelf of rock, Od. 2. a rock, i.e. a rocky peak or ridge . . . Properly, πέτρα is a fixed rock, πέτρος a stone." (Source: Liddell, H. (1996). A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English lexicon (636). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.).
A stone is movable, unstable; and this is exactly what we see with Peter, who doubted when he walked on water, who denied Jesus, and who was rebuked by Paul at Antioch.
Matt. 14:29-30, "And Peter got out of the boat, and walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30 But seeing the wind, he became afraid, and beginning to sink, he cried out, saying, "Lord, save me!"
Luke 22:57-58, "But he denied it, saying, "Woman, I do not know Him." 58 And a little later, another saw him and said, "You are one of them too!" But Peter said, "Man, I am not!"
Gal. 2:11,14 "But when Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned . . . 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"
Jesus, who knew the heart of Peter, was not saying that Peter, the movable and unstable stone, would be the immovable rock upon which the Church would be built. Rather, it would be built upon Jesus; and it was this truth that Peter had affirmed what he said to Jesus, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," (Matt. 16:16). This is consistent with scripture elsewhere where the term rock is sometimes used in reference to God but never of a man.
Deut. 32:4, "The Rock! His work is perfect, for all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice."
2 Sam. 22:2-3, "The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer; 3 My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge."
Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."
Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."
It should be obvious from the Word of God that the rock Jesus was referring to was not Peter--but himself.
The Aramaic Kepha
In contrast to this, in paragraph #2 at the beginning of this article, the Roman Catholic Church says that the rock cannot refer to Jesus "but only Peter--as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for 'Peter' and 'rock.'" The problem is that the text is not in Aramaic--but Greek. Since we do not have the Aramaic text, it is not proper to refer to it as proof of the Roman Catholic position. We have to ask ourselves why the Roman Catholic Church would resort to using something that we don't have: the Aramaic text. Is it because their argument is not supported by the Greek, and so they must infer something from a text we don't possess?
Furthermore, in John 1:42 it says, "He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas," (which is translated Peter)." The word "Peter" here is petros--not petra. It is used to elucidate the Aramaic kephas which is not a name in Aramaic.
"Except in Jn. 1:42, where it is used to elucidate Aramaic kēphás, Pétros is used in the NT only as a name for Simon Peter . . . The translation supports the view that Kēphás is not a proper name, since one does not usually translate proper names"1
Jesus is the rock on which the church is built
The truth is that the only foundation is Jesus. The only rock of truth is Jesus Christ; and that we, as his redeemed, need to keep our eyes on him. We are to look to no one else as the foundation, the source, or the hope on which the church is built. The Church is built upon Jesus--not Peter.
"For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ," (1 Cor. 3:11).
https://carm.org/is-peter-the-rock
Dec 5, 2018 12:52:52 #
More from Ligonier Ministries -
The most disputed text on ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church) is Matthew 16:13–20. Protestants and Eastern Orthodox alike contest the use of Christ’s affirmation of Peter by Roman Catholics to establish the papacy.
Unfortunately, we can consider the issues raised by today’s passage only in brief. Foremost among these is what Jesus does not say in His commendation of Peter. Though invested with authority in verse 19, Peter is not thereby given supreme authority over the church universal. As a steward over God’s house, Peter’s keys give him (but not only him) authority among God’s people. For example, he can assure repentant sinners of divine pardon, not because he is able to forgive sin, but because he proclaims the free Gospel of forgiveness. Therefore, the keys also enable him to assure the impenitent that they can by no means inherit the kingdom of God. Yet Peter’s keys also belong to every apostle and, in a qualified sense, church leaders today as well (18:15–20; Eph. 2:19–20). Furthermore, Matthew 16:13–20 says nothing about Peter passing on a “unique” office to successive bishops, and it gives no support for papal infallibility.
Historic Protestantism recognizes such truths, and often says that Peter’s confession is the rock to which Jesus refers. This makes good sense, but we err if we say that Peter himself is not in any sense a rock upon which the church is built (Eph. 2:22). There is a play on words in the original Greek text: Peter’s name, Petros, is based on petra, that is, “rock” (v. 18). In other words, Jesus declares, “Simon, you are the rock, and on this rock I will build my church.” Peter has primacy in the church — a historical primacy, not papal primacy. Aside from being the first to confess Christ, Peter is the first apostle to extend the Gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10), and his leadership and teaching set the stage for the church’s expansion and maturity (chap. 1–15; 1 and 2 Peter). Thus, we conclude with John Calvin: “It is a foolish inference of the Papists, that he received the primacy, and became the universal head of the whole Church. Rank is a different thing from power, and to be elevated to the highest place of honor among a few persons is a different thing from embracing the whole world under his dominion.”
Coram Deo
When we study Scripture, we should be careful not to let the excesses of opposing positions unduly influence our own applications of the text. All the teachings of those with whom we disagree may not necessarily be wrong, and we should strive to be faithful to God’s Word, not driven to make decisions that are contrary to what our opponents do just because we do not want in any way to look like them. Let us be true to Scripture no matter what others do.
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/peter-rock/
The most disputed text on ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church) is Matthew 16:13–20. Protestants and Eastern Orthodox alike contest the use of Christ’s affirmation of Peter by Roman Catholics to establish the papacy.
Unfortunately, we can consider the issues raised by today’s passage only in brief. Foremost among these is what Jesus does not say in His commendation of Peter. Though invested with authority in verse 19, Peter is not thereby given supreme authority over the church universal. As a steward over God’s house, Peter’s keys give him (but not only him) authority among God’s people. For example, he can assure repentant sinners of divine pardon, not because he is able to forgive sin, but because he proclaims the free Gospel of forgiveness. Therefore, the keys also enable him to assure the impenitent that they can by no means inherit the kingdom of God. Yet Peter’s keys also belong to every apostle and, in a qualified sense, church leaders today as well (18:15–20; Eph. 2:19–20). Furthermore, Matthew 16:13–20 says nothing about Peter passing on a “unique” office to successive bishops, and it gives no support for papal infallibility.
Historic Protestantism recognizes such truths, and often says that Peter’s confession is the rock to which Jesus refers. This makes good sense, but we err if we say that Peter himself is not in any sense a rock upon which the church is built (Eph. 2:22). There is a play on words in the original Greek text: Peter’s name, Petros, is based on petra, that is, “rock” (v. 18). In other words, Jesus declares, “Simon, you are the rock, and on this rock I will build my church.” Peter has primacy in the church — a historical primacy, not papal primacy. Aside from being the first to confess Christ, Peter is the first apostle to extend the Gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10), and his leadership and teaching set the stage for the church’s expansion and maturity (chap. 1–15; 1 and 2 Peter). Thus, we conclude with John Calvin: “It is a foolish inference of the Papists, that he received the primacy, and became the universal head of the whole Church. Rank is a different thing from power, and to be elevated to the highest place of honor among a few persons is a different thing from embracing the whole world under his dominion.”
Coram Deo
When we study Scripture, we should be careful not to let the excesses of opposing positions unduly influence our own applications of the text. All the teachings of those with whom we disagree may not necessarily be wrong, and we should strive to be faithful to God’s Word, not driven to make decisions that are contrary to what our opponents do just because we do not want in any way to look like them. Let us be true to Scripture no matter what others do.
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/peter-rock/
Dec 5, 2018 13:17:52 #
Rose42 wrote:
More from Ligonier Ministries - br br The most di... (show quote)
Amen and Amen excellent post Rose42 thank you for this post and it shows and proves that Peter the apostle was not the first pope and was not the rock that the church was built upon. Amen and Amen
Dec 6, 2018 07:15:01 #
Rose42 wrote:
More from Ligonier Ministries - br br The most di... (show quote)
===============
The Criminal Enterprise of Sola Scriptura:
These Pastors using the Sola Scriptura as their merchandise, selling the Words of God to the people, as they extort and mislead the poorest people giving up their ultimate livelihood, into believing on their deceptive sales talks. The 47,000 interpretations of Sola Scriptura, A DECEPTION TO HUMANITY.
https://www.pulse.com.gh/lifestyle/richest-pastors-in-the-world-and-their-net-worth-forbes-id7838919.html
http://allchristiannews.com/worlds-richest-pastors-list/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andersonantunes/2013/01/17/the-richest-pastors-in-brazil/
https://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?
https://buzznigeria.com/richest-pastors-world/
Dec 6, 2018 08:49:34 #
Radiance3 wrote:
=============== br The Criminal Enterprise of Sola... (show quote)
You are desperately trying to deflect from the truth and you fail. How many times have you posted this in your futile efforts to defend the false doctrine of your church?
Dec 6, 2018 09:48:40 #
bahmer wrote:
Amen and Amen excellent post Rose42 thank you for this post and it shows and proves that Peter the apostle was not the first pope and was not the rock that the church was built upon. Amen and Amen
Amen and Amen excellent post Rose42 thank you for this post and it shows and proves that Peter the apostle was not the first pope and was not the rock that the church was built upon. Amen and Amen
12/04/2018 New book clarifies beliefs and corrects misunderstandings about the papacy
Stephen K. Ray
a. https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/12/04/new-book-clarifies-beliefs-and-corrects-misunderstandings-about-the-papacy/
b. https://www.catholicworldreport.com/author/cwr-staff/
“Very few know the biblical foundation for the office of pope,” says Stephen K. Ray, co-author of The Papacy:
What the Pope Does and Why It Matters, “or the manner in which a pope is elected.
What is his job?
Can he ever be challenged or corrected?”
The entrance portal of St. Peter's Parish Church in Radovljica.
Stephen K. Ray is author of Several Books.
https://www.ignatius.com/cw_contributorinfo.aspx?ContribID=44&Name=Stephen+K.+Ray
Including:
Crossing the Tiber,
https://www.ignatius.com/Crossing-the-Tiber-P516.aspx
Upon This Rock, and
https://www.ignatius.com/Upon-This-Rock-P2535.aspx
St. John’s Gospel: A Bible Study and Commentary.
https://www.ignatius.com/St-Johns-Gospel-P181.aspx
He is also the host of the popular, award-winning film series on salvation history, The Footprints of God.
https://www.ignatius.com/Search.aspx?k=footprints+god
Raised in a devout Protestant family, Steve was once a deacon and Bible teacher in the Baptist denomination.
An in-depth study of the writings of the Church Fathers played a key role in Steve and his wife Janet eventually entering the Catholic Church.
His new book, co-authored with Rev Dennis K. Walters, is The Papacy: What the Pope Does and Why It Matters (Ignatius, 2018),
https://www.ignatius.com/The-Papacy-P3050.aspx
Which both describes the Pope’s unique role as leader and teacher and addresses common misconceptions and objections to the papacy.
It also explains how the papacy developed, how the Pope is elected, and other important aspects of an often misunderstood and misrepresented office.
Ray recently corresponded with CWR about the book.
CWR: When you were a Baptist and looking at the Catholic Church from the outside, what did you think about the papacy?
Stephen K. Ray: A year before I was born my parents became Baptists; they prayed for kids and I was born a year later.
My father was taught to be very anti-Catholic.
He loved books and I still have many of his old books from the 1950s in my library.
I recall one even from my days of tussling with my brothers on the living room carpet. It loomed large on the shelf. I
t was entitled The Two Babylons and Papal Worship was in the subtitle [The Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons
That particular book is still on my office shelves today.
My father’s passionate Baptist views of Bible and Christianity had a huge impact on my early years, as I loved my father dearly.
If he said the Pope was the anti-christ and that Catholics worshipped the Pope instead of Christ, who was I to argue with him?
After all, I didn’t know any better and I didn’t know any Catholics.
As I grew older and experienced more of the wide world and other Christian groups.
I continued to view Catholicism as a “man-made institution” invented by clever men who twisted Scripture to manipulate gullible people who had never read the Bible for themselves.
I wondered:
Why would freedom-loving people in America want to let some old man in Rome tell them what to believe and what to do?
Hadn’t we overthrown kings and emperors?
Why subject ourselves again to a foreign leader named “the Pope”, who intended to encroach in every area of our lives?
We had the Bible and the “Bible alone” and that was enough for us.
CWR: What were some key arguments or facts that changed your views? And how do they inform this particular book?
Ray: Having no interest in the Catholic Church, other than to convert naive Catholics to real, biblical Christianity, several things converged on us at the same time.
First, we began to question our basic Protestant beliefs.
Our journey to understand the papacy and the fuller Catholic belief began, not with seeing anything positive about Catholicism;
Rather, it began with our disillusionment with our Evangelical Protestantism.
The whole issue of authority was one of those problems.
Second, we had a “good Evangelical” friend suddenly convert to Catholicism—and it shocked us.
In response I started reading the Fathers of the Church in an effort to prove to him that he had made a big mistake;
The early Christians were Protestants in their belief, right?
Well, did we ever get a shock!
The early Christians held to the same doctrines and authority structure that is practiced by the Catholic Church today.
Using the simple analogy of a tree, it was in a sapling phase that would eventually become the full blown tree, but organically it was the same thing taught in the Catechism today.
Multiple denominations with no common bond or authority also disillusioned us. God could not have meant his “church” to be divided and bickering among thousands of competing theologies and denominations.
Wouldn’t he have provided some kind of shepherd, captain, head, president, or something similar to keep unity and focus?
After looking at the Bible with new eyes I began to understand typology and the continuity between the two testaments, not only in the salvation story but also the way God organized and structured his covenant people.
The papacy was emerging not only as a good way to do so, and one that reflected God’s dealing with the Old Testament community, but also the structure that emerged in the New Testament and through the growth of the Church.
CWR: Do you find that some Catholics have flawed understandings of the nature of the papacy?
If so, what are some of those?
Ray: Unhappily, quite a few Catholics seem to have as many misconceptions as Protestants—but of a different sort.
Ask your average Catholic what “infallibility” means and you will get as many suggestions as you do facial expressions.
These range from a confident, though ignorant, answer to a puzzled face and garbled speech.
A few Catholics will provide a lucid and correct answer, but that is a rare phenomenon.
Very few know the biblical foundation for the office of pope, or the manner in which a pope is elected.
What is his job?
Can he ever be challenged or corrected?
The questions keep coming.
We thought it a good idea to provide a comprehensive “job description” of the pope.
The book is intended as a “one stop, one shop” place to get the basic A to Z of the papacy.
I think we succeeded.
CWR: So, is this book meant to inform Catholics for the most part, or is it written with non-Catholics in mind?
Ray: Confusion and ignorance of the papacy is not relegated to the Protestant and secular worlds alone.
Other major religions and ideologies also suffer a serious lack of understanding.
It is written with them in mind.
But most of our readers will be Catholics, and the book was primarily written for them.
Ignorance is a brutal task master and such lack of truth and understanding rapidly perpetuates itself in a web of confusion and spreading cloud of ignorance.
Truth and history, clarity and evidence help blow away the confusing cloud and liberates minds that are enslaved to error and ignorance.
My wife and I currently have fifteen grandchildren, with our sixteenth due in February. If nothing else, I want my own family to have a clear understanding of the biblical basis, the historical development and essential nature of the Church and its authoritative structure.
I want them to be Catholic into the next generations.
Faith and truth is not easy to pass on to the coming generations, but clear thinking and good books are certainly positive steps and important guides.
That is a key reason we wrote this book.
CWR: Did you write this book to address concerns about the current pontificate?
Ray: It seems clear to everyone—whether they are cheerleaders for Pope Francis or those of us who are watching and praying with some serious concerns—
That things are not as we’d like them to be.
There are divisions, conflicts, confusions, and uncertainty.
Popes are to be a uniting and clarifying force in the Church but what we sometimes see today tends to be quite the opposite.
This book, however, does not address Pope Francis or any pope in particular.
It is more to provide a “job description” by which any pope current, past or future can be judged as to the success of their pontificate.
When we have a clear outline of what the pope should do and why it matters, then we can ascertain a particular papacy on more than just emotion.
We can be much more objective in our evaluation.
It also assists us in our prayers and actions.
So, this book is not specifically to address current problems with the Vatican and Pope Francis.
No pope is perfect but this book gives the explanation of the job description and then each person can evaluate how well any particular pope lives up to that.
CWR: Can Catholics offer criticism of a pope? If so, how so?
Ray: It is a misconception that if someone disagrees with a pope they are a heretic or schismatic.
It is also a failure to understand the correct conception of infallibility, as though the pope cannot say anything wrong and we are obligated to believe and obey everything he says or writes.
Before we discuss the issue of criticizing or disagreeing with pope, we need to remember that the office of Peter, the office of the pope, is an institution established by Jesus Christ himself.
In Matthew 16 Jesus says to Peter, whom he is appointing as the Royal Steward of his Kingdom, that Peter is the rock on which the Church will be built—
Meaning not only the appointment of a man, but also the establishment of an office.
Every king in Israel had a royal steward who carried the keys of the kingdom to administer the kingdom as a delegated representative of the king himself.
Understood with a clear knowledge of the Old Testament we see Jesus as the king delegating his keys to his royal steward.
As such, we are to hold the papacy in the highest regard, with loyalty and deference. We are to have an attitude of deference and obedience.
But such a loyalty to the office of the pope does not mean that we abandon our intelligence and knowledge of the truth.
If we see a pope contradict the clear teaching of the Church, or to lead pastorally in the wrong direction, it does not mean we follow along blindly as with a Pied Piper.
We are to always give deference to his words and actions, with an effort to see and understand them in a positive way, but if that becomes impossible then respectably disagreeing is not a sin.
This book we address this issue by referencing Scripture, the Fathers of the Church, and history.
In the book of Galatians, for instance, we see St. Paul confront Pope Peter.
Even though he respects Peter’s office and refers to Peter several times as Cephas (“the Rock”), he still does not consider it improper to criticize Peter.
Paul writes, “But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.”
St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas pick up on this passage and reaffirm that under certain circumstances it not only acceptable but necessary to speak out. St. Catherine of Sienna, for example, confronted the pope.
As I stated in Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church, my earlier book on the papacy:
a. https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/12/04/new-book-clarifies-beliefs-and-corrects-misunderstandings-about-the-papacy/
b. "https://www.ignatius.com/Upon-This-Rock-P2535.aspx
A classic example of this occurred when Catherine of Siena (c. 1347–1380) severely reproved Pope Gregory XI and ultimately persuaded him to return the Papacy from Avignon to Rome.
“Catherine arrived at Avignon on June 18, 1376, and soon had a conference with Pope Gregory, to whom she had already written six times, ‘in an intolerably dictatorial tone, a little sweetened with expressions of her perfect Christian deference’ ”
(Alban Butler, Butler’s Lives of the Saints, rev. Herbert Thurston and Donald Attwater [Allen, Tex.: Christian Classics, 1995], 2:195–96).
Can anyone imagine a fourteenth-century woman reproving the Pope, especially with an “intolerably dictatorial tone”?
And imagine, she was not only canonized a saint, but she was declared a Doctor of the Church!
So much for the Pope’s insulation from reproof and criticism.
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI also commented on the acceptability of the faithful to critique the pope in certain instances.
One thing that should be remembered is that the Church also has bishops and it would certainly be correct for bishops to act with an attitude of collegiality toward the pope and to honestly discuss matters of difficulty with him without fear of reprisal and with respect for all.
Lay people can also disagree but it should be done with the utmost respect and bathed in prayer.
In short, no, the pope is not beyond criticism—and because of that fact and the confusion surrounding that issue.
I felt it was essential to add a section on this exact topic considering the situation we find ourselves in today.
CWR: What do you hope readers will gain most from this book?
Ray: My hope is the people will love the Church Jesus started and continues to build.
Jesus is the head of the Church, the pope is simply the successor of Peter the Royal Steward.
There have been good popes and bad popes, saintly examples and scandalous, those who serve well and those who have served poorly.
But they come and go and the Church marches on with Jesus as head.
Ignorance of history and truth is a dangerous thing.
Clarity of truth and knowledge of the the facts is liberating.
May all who read this book come away with a deep love for Jesus.
Deep love for His Church and the office of the papacy which has served us so well for two thousand year.
May it give us hope and confidence for our future.
Dec 6, 2018 09:50:52 #
12/04/2018 New book clarifies beliefs and corrects misunderstandings about the papacy
Stephen K. Ray
a. https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/12/04/new-book-clarifies-beliefs-and-corrects-misunderstandings-about-the-papacy/
b. https://www.catholicworldreport.com/author/cwr-staff/
“Very few know the biblical foundation for the office of pope,” says Stephen K. Ray, co-author of The Papacy:
What the Pope Does and Why It Matters, “or the manner in which a pope is elected.
What is his job?
Can he ever be challenged or corrected?”
The entrance portal of St. Peter's Parish Church in Radovljica.
Stephen K. Ray is author of Several Books.
https://www.ignatius.com/cw_contributorinfo.aspx?ContribID=44&Name=Stephen+K.+Ray
Including:
Crossing the Tiber,
https://www.ignatius.com/Crossing-the-Tiber-P516.aspx
Upon This Rock, and
https://www.ignatius.com/Upon-This-Rock-P2535.aspx
St. John’s Gospel: A Bible Study and Commentary.
https://www.ignatius.com/St-Johns-Gospel-P181.aspx
He is also the host of the popular, award-winning film series on salvation history, The Footprints of God.
https://www.ignatius.com/Search.aspx?k=footprints+god
Raised in a devout Protestant family, Steve was once a deacon and Bible teacher in the Baptist denomination.
An in-depth study of the writings of the Church Fathers played a key role in Steve and his wife Janet eventually entering the Catholic Church.
His new book, co-authored with Rev Dennis K. Walters, is The Papacy: What the Pope Does and Why It Matters (Ignatius, 2018),
https://www.ignatius.com/The-Papacy-P3050.aspx
Which both describes the Pope’s unique role as leader and teacher and addresses common misconceptions and objections to the papacy.
It also explains how the papacy developed, how the Pope is elected, and other important aspects of an often misunderstood and misrepresented office.
Ray recently corresponded with CWR about the book.
CWR: When you were a Baptist and looking at the Catholic Church from the outside, what did you think about the papacy?
Stephen K. Ray: A year before I was born my parents became Baptists; they prayed for kids and I was born a year later.
My father was taught to be very anti-Catholic.
He loved books and I still have many of his old books from the 1950s in my library.
I recall one even from my days of tussling with my brothers on the living room carpet. It loomed large on the shelf. I
t was entitled The Two Babylons and Papal Worship was in the subtitle [The Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons
That particular book is still on my office shelves today.
My father’s passionate Baptist views of Bible and Christianity had a huge impact on my early years, as I loved my father dearly.
If he said the Pope was the anti-christ and that Catholics worshipped the Pope instead of Christ, who was I to argue with him?
After all, I didn’t know any better and I didn’t know any Catholics.
As I grew older and experienced more of the wide world and other Christian groups.
I continued to view Catholicism as a “man-made institution” invented by clever men who twisted Scripture to manipulate gullible people who had never read the Bible for themselves.
I wondered:
Why would freedom-loving people in America want to let some old man in Rome tell them what to believe and what to do?
Hadn’t we overthrown kings and emperors?
Why subject ourselves again to a foreign leader named “the Pope”, who intended to encroach in every area of our lives?
We had the Bible and the “Bible alone” and that was enough for us.
CWR: What were some key arguments or facts that changed your views? And how do they inform this particular book?
Ray: Having no interest in the Catholic Church, other than to convert naive Catholics to real, biblical Christianity, several things converged on us at the same time.
First, we began to question our basic Protestant beliefs.
Our journey to understand the papacy and the fuller Catholic belief began, not with seeing anything positive about Catholicism;
Rather, it began with our disillusionment with our Evangelical Protestantism.
The whole issue of authority was one of those problems.
Second, we had a “good Evangelical” friend suddenly convert to Catholicism—and it shocked us.
In response I started reading the Fathers of the Church in an effort to prove to him that he had made a big mistake;
The early Christians were Protestants in their belief, right?
Well, did we ever get a shock!
The early Christians held to the same doctrines and authority structure that is practiced by the Catholic Church today.
Using the simple analogy of a tree, it was in a sapling phase that would eventually become the full blown tree, but organically it was the same thing taught in the Catechism today.
Multiple denominations with no common bond or authority also disillusioned us. God could not have meant his “church” to be divided and bickering among thousands of competing theologies and denominations.
Wouldn’t he have provided some kind of shepherd, captain, head, president, or something similar to keep unity and focus?
After looking at the Bible with new eyes I began to understand typology and the continuity between the two testaments, not only in the salvation story but also the way God organized and structured his covenant people.
The papacy was emerging not only as a good way to do so, and one that reflected God’s dealing with the Old Testament community, but also the structure that emerged in the New Testament and through the growth of the Church.
CWR: Do you find that some Catholics have flawed understandings of the nature of the papacy?
If so, what are some of those?
Ray: Unhappily, quite a few Catholics seem to have as many misconceptions as Protestants—but of a different sort.
Ask your average Catholic what “infallibility” means and you will get as many suggestions as you do facial expressions.
These range from a confident, though ignorant, answer to a puzzled face and garbled speech.
A few Catholics will provide a lucid and correct answer, but that is a rare phenomenon.
Very few know the biblical foundation for the office of pope, or the manner in which a pope is elected.
What is his job?
Can he ever be challenged or corrected?
The questions keep coming.
We thought it a good idea to provide a comprehensive “job description” of the pope.
The book is intended as a “one stop, one shop” place to get the basic A to Z of the papacy.
I think we succeeded.
CWR: So, is this book meant to inform Catholics for the most part, or is it written with non-Catholics in mind?
Ray: Confusion and ignorance of the papacy is not relegated to the Protestant and secular worlds alone.
Other major religions and ideologies also suffer a serious lack of understanding.
It is written with them in mind.
But most of our readers will be Catholics, and the book was primarily written for them.
Ignorance is a brutal task master and such lack of truth and understanding rapidly perpetuates itself in a web of confusion and spreading cloud of ignorance.
Truth and history, clarity and evidence help blow away the confusing cloud and liberates minds that are enslaved to error and ignorance.
My wife and I currently have fifteen grandchildren, with our sixteenth due in February. If nothing else, I want my own family to have a clear understanding of the biblical basis, the historical development and essential nature of the Church and its authoritative structure.
I want them to be Catholic into the next generations.
Faith and truth is not easy to pass on to the coming generations, but clear thinking and good books are certainly positive steps and important guides.
That is a key reason we wrote this book.
CWR: Did you write this book to address concerns about the current pontificate?
Ray: It seems clear to everyone—whether they are cheerleaders for Pope Francis or those of us who are watching and praying with some serious concerns—
That things are not as we’d like them to be.
There are divisions, conflicts, confusions, and uncertainty.
Popes are to be a uniting and clarifying force in the Church but what we sometimes see today tends to be quite the opposite.
This book, however, does not address Pope Francis or any pope in particular.
It is more to provide a “job description” by which any pope current, past or future can be judged as to the success of their pontificate.
When we have a clear outline of what the pope should do and why it matters, then we can ascertain a particular papacy on more than just emotion.
We can be much more objective in our evaluation.
It also assists us in our prayers and actions.
So, this book is not specifically to address current problems with the Vatican and Pope Francis.
No pope is perfect but this book gives the explanation of the job description and then each person can evaluate how well any particular pope lives up to that.
CWR: Can Catholics offer criticism of a pope? If so, how so?
Ray: It is a misconception that if someone disagrees with a pope they are a heretic or schismatic.
It is also a failure to understand the correct conception of infallibility, as though the pope cannot say anything wrong and we are obligated to believe and obey everything he says or writes.
Before we discuss the issue of criticizing or disagreeing with pope, we need to remember that the office of Peter, the office of the pope, is an institution established by Jesus Christ himself.
In Matthew 16 Jesus says to Peter, whom he is appointing as the Royal Steward of his Kingdom, that Peter is the rock on which the Church will be built—
Meaning not only the appointment of a man, but also the establishment of an office.
Every king in Israel had a royal steward who carried the keys of the kingdom to administer the kingdom as a delegated representative of the king himself.
Understood with a clear knowledge of the Old Testament we see Jesus as the king delegating his keys to his royal steward.
As such, we are to hold the papacy in the highest regard, with loyalty and deference. We are to have an attitude of deference and obedience.
But such a loyalty to the office of the pope does not mean that we abandon our intelligence and knowledge of the truth.
If we see a pope contradict the clear teaching of the Church, or to lead pastorally in the wrong direction, it does not mean we follow along blindly as with a Pied Piper.
We are to always give deference to his words and actions, with an effort to see and understand them in a positive way, but if that becomes impossible then respectably disagreeing is not a sin.
Stephen K. Ray
a. https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/12/04/new-book-clarifies-beliefs-and-corrects-misunderstandings-about-the-papacy/
b. https://www.catholicworldreport.com/author/cwr-staff/
“Very few know the biblical foundation for the office of pope,” says Stephen K. Ray, co-author of The Papacy:
What the Pope Does and Why It Matters, “or the manner in which a pope is elected.
What is his job?
Can he ever be challenged or corrected?”
The entrance portal of St. Peter's Parish Church in Radovljica.
Stephen K. Ray is author of Several Books.
https://www.ignatius.com/cw_contributorinfo.aspx?ContribID=44&Name=Stephen+K.+Ray
Including:
Crossing the Tiber,
https://www.ignatius.com/Crossing-the-Tiber-P516.aspx
Upon This Rock, and
https://www.ignatius.com/Upon-This-Rock-P2535.aspx
St. John’s Gospel: A Bible Study and Commentary.
https://www.ignatius.com/St-Johns-Gospel-P181.aspx
He is also the host of the popular, award-winning film series on salvation history, The Footprints of God.
https://www.ignatius.com/Search.aspx?k=footprints+god
Raised in a devout Protestant family, Steve was once a deacon and Bible teacher in the Baptist denomination.
An in-depth study of the writings of the Church Fathers played a key role in Steve and his wife Janet eventually entering the Catholic Church.
His new book, co-authored with Rev Dennis K. Walters, is The Papacy: What the Pope Does and Why It Matters (Ignatius, 2018),
https://www.ignatius.com/The-Papacy-P3050.aspx
Which both describes the Pope’s unique role as leader and teacher and addresses common misconceptions and objections to the papacy.
It also explains how the papacy developed, how the Pope is elected, and other important aspects of an often misunderstood and misrepresented office.
Ray recently corresponded with CWR about the book.
CWR: When you were a Baptist and looking at the Catholic Church from the outside, what did you think about the papacy?
Stephen K. Ray: A year before I was born my parents became Baptists; they prayed for kids and I was born a year later.
My father was taught to be very anti-Catholic.
He loved books and I still have many of his old books from the 1950s in my library.
I recall one even from my days of tussling with my brothers on the living room carpet. It loomed large on the shelf. I
t was entitled The Two Babylons and Papal Worship was in the subtitle [The Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons
That particular book is still on my office shelves today.
My father’s passionate Baptist views of Bible and Christianity had a huge impact on my early years, as I loved my father dearly.
If he said the Pope was the anti-christ and that Catholics worshipped the Pope instead of Christ, who was I to argue with him?
After all, I didn’t know any better and I didn’t know any Catholics.
As I grew older and experienced more of the wide world and other Christian groups.
I continued to view Catholicism as a “man-made institution” invented by clever men who twisted Scripture to manipulate gullible people who had never read the Bible for themselves.
I wondered:
Why would freedom-loving people in America want to let some old man in Rome tell them what to believe and what to do?
Hadn’t we overthrown kings and emperors?
Why subject ourselves again to a foreign leader named “the Pope”, who intended to encroach in every area of our lives?
We had the Bible and the “Bible alone” and that was enough for us.
CWR: What were some key arguments or facts that changed your views? And how do they inform this particular book?
Ray: Having no interest in the Catholic Church, other than to convert naive Catholics to real, biblical Christianity, several things converged on us at the same time.
First, we began to question our basic Protestant beliefs.
Our journey to understand the papacy and the fuller Catholic belief began, not with seeing anything positive about Catholicism;
Rather, it began with our disillusionment with our Evangelical Protestantism.
The whole issue of authority was one of those problems.
Second, we had a “good Evangelical” friend suddenly convert to Catholicism—and it shocked us.
In response I started reading the Fathers of the Church in an effort to prove to him that he had made a big mistake;
The early Christians were Protestants in their belief, right?
Well, did we ever get a shock!
The early Christians held to the same doctrines and authority structure that is practiced by the Catholic Church today.
Using the simple analogy of a tree, it was in a sapling phase that would eventually become the full blown tree, but organically it was the same thing taught in the Catechism today.
Multiple denominations with no common bond or authority also disillusioned us. God could not have meant his “church” to be divided and bickering among thousands of competing theologies and denominations.
Wouldn’t he have provided some kind of shepherd, captain, head, president, or something similar to keep unity and focus?
After looking at the Bible with new eyes I began to understand typology and the continuity between the two testaments, not only in the salvation story but also the way God organized and structured his covenant people.
The papacy was emerging not only as a good way to do so, and one that reflected God’s dealing with the Old Testament community, but also the structure that emerged in the New Testament and through the growth of the Church.
CWR: Do you find that some Catholics have flawed understandings of the nature of the papacy?
If so, what are some of those?
Ray: Unhappily, quite a few Catholics seem to have as many misconceptions as Protestants—but of a different sort.
Ask your average Catholic what “infallibility” means and you will get as many suggestions as you do facial expressions.
These range from a confident, though ignorant, answer to a puzzled face and garbled speech.
A few Catholics will provide a lucid and correct answer, but that is a rare phenomenon.
Very few know the biblical foundation for the office of pope, or the manner in which a pope is elected.
What is his job?
Can he ever be challenged or corrected?
The questions keep coming.
We thought it a good idea to provide a comprehensive “job description” of the pope.
The book is intended as a “one stop, one shop” place to get the basic A to Z of the papacy.
I think we succeeded.
CWR: So, is this book meant to inform Catholics for the most part, or is it written with non-Catholics in mind?
Ray: Confusion and ignorance of the papacy is not relegated to the Protestant and secular worlds alone.
Other major religions and ideologies also suffer a serious lack of understanding.
It is written with them in mind.
But most of our readers will be Catholics, and the book was primarily written for them.
Ignorance is a brutal task master and such lack of truth and understanding rapidly perpetuates itself in a web of confusion and spreading cloud of ignorance.
Truth and history, clarity and evidence help blow away the confusing cloud and liberates minds that are enslaved to error and ignorance.
My wife and I currently have fifteen grandchildren, with our sixteenth due in February. If nothing else, I want my own family to have a clear understanding of the biblical basis, the historical development and essential nature of the Church and its authoritative structure.
I want them to be Catholic into the next generations.
Faith and truth is not easy to pass on to the coming generations, but clear thinking and good books are certainly positive steps and important guides.
That is a key reason we wrote this book.
CWR: Did you write this book to address concerns about the current pontificate?
Ray: It seems clear to everyone—whether they are cheerleaders for Pope Francis or those of us who are watching and praying with some serious concerns—
That things are not as we’d like them to be.
There are divisions, conflicts, confusions, and uncertainty.
Popes are to be a uniting and clarifying force in the Church but what we sometimes see today tends to be quite the opposite.
This book, however, does not address Pope Francis or any pope in particular.
It is more to provide a “job description” by which any pope current, past or future can be judged as to the success of their pontificate.
When we have a clear outline of what the pope should do and why it matters, then we can ascertain a particular papacy on more than just emotion.
We can be much more objective in our evaluation.
It also assists us in our prayers and actions.
So, this book is not specifically to address current problems with the Vatican and Pope Francis.
No pope is perfect but this book gives the explanation of the job description and then each person can evaluate how well any particular pope lives up to that.
CWR: Can Catholics offer criticism of a pope? If so, how so?
Ray: It is a misconception that if someone disagrees with a pope they are a heretic or schismatic.
It is also a failure to understand the correct conception of infallibility, as though the pope cannot say anything wrong and we are obligated to believe and obey everything he says or writes.
Before we discuss the issue of criticizing or disagreeing with pope, we need to remember that the office of Peter, the office of the pope, is an institution established by Jesus Christ himself.
In Matthew 16 Jesus says to Peter, whom he is appointing as the Royal Steward of his Kingdom, that Peter is the rock on which the Church will be built—
Meaning not only the appointment of a man, but also the establishment of an office.
Every king in Israel had a royal steward who carried the keys of the kingdom to administer the kingdom as a delegated representative of the king himself.
Understood with a clear knowledge of the Old Testament we see Jesus as the king delegating his keys to his royal steward.
As such, we are to hold the papacy in the highest regard, with loyalty and deference. We are to have an attitude of deference and obedience.
But such a loyalty to the office of the pope does not mean that we abandon our intelligence and knowledge of the truth.
If we see a pope contradict the clear teaching of the Church, or to lead pastorally in the wrong direction, it does not mean we follow along blindly as with a Pied Piper.
We are to always give deference to his words and actions, with an effort to see and understand them in a positive way, but if that becomes impossible then respectably disagreeing is not a sin.
Rose42 wrote:
More from Ligonier Ministries - br br The most di... (show quote)
Dec 6, 2018 09:51:57 #
This book we address this issue by referencing Scripture, the Fathers of the Church, and history.
In the book of Galatians, for instance, we see St. Paul confront Pope Peter.
Even though he respects Peter’s office and refers to Peter several times as Cephas (“the Rock”), he still does not consider it improper to criticize Peter.
Paul writes, “But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.”
St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas pick up on this passage and reaffirm that under certain circumstances it not only acceptable but necessary to speak out. St. Catherine of Sienna, for example, confronted the pope.
As I stated in Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church, my earlier book on the papacy:
a. https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/12/04/new-book-clarifies-beliefs-and-corrects-misunderstandings-about-the-papacy/
b. "https://www.ignatius.com/Upon-This-Rock-P2535.aspx
A classic example of this occurred when Catherine of Siena (c. 1347–1380) severely reproved Pope Gregory XI and ultimately persuaded him to return the Papacy from Avignon to Rome.
“Catherine arrived at Avignon on June 18, 1376, and soon had a conference with Pope Gregory, to whom she had already written six times, ‘in an intolerably dictatorial tone, a little sweetened with expressions of her perfect Christian deference’ ”
(Alban Butler, Butler’s Lives of the Saints, rev. Herbert Thurston and Donald Attwater [Allen, Tex.: Christian Classics, 1995], 2:195–96).
Can anyone imagine a fourteenth-century woman reproving the Pope, especially with an “intolerably dictatorial tone”?
And imagine, she was not only canonized a saint, but she was declared a Doctor of the Church!
So much for the Pope’s insulation from reproof and criticism.
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI also commented on the acceptability of the faithful to critique the pope in certain instances.
One thing that should be remembered is that the Church also has bishops and it would certainly be correct for bishops to act with an attitude of collegiality toward the pope and to honestly discuss matters of difficulty with him without fear of reprisal and with respect for all.
Lay people can also disagree but it should be done with the utmost respect and bathed in prayer.
In short, no, the pope is not beyond criticism—and because of that fact and the confusion surrounding that issue.
I felt it was essential to add a section on this exact topic considering the situation we find ourselves in today.
CWR: What do you hope readers will gain most from this book?
Ray: My hope is the people will love the Church Jesus started and continues to build.
Jesus is the head of the Church, the pope is simply the successor of Peter the Royal Steward.
There have been good popes and bad popes, saintly examples and scandalous, those who serve well and those who have served poorly.
But they come and go and the Church marches on with Jesus as head.
Ignorance of history and truth is a dangerous thing.
Clarity of truth and knowledge of the the facts is liberating.
May all who read this book come away with a deep love for Jesus.
Deep love for His Church and the office of the papacy which has served us so well for two thousand year.
May it give us hope and confidence for our future.
In the book of Galatians, for instance, we see St. Paul confront Pope Peter.
Even though he respects Peter’s office and refers to Peter several times as Cephas (“the Rock”), he still does not consider it improper to criticize Peter.
Paul writes, “But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.”
St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas pick up on this passage and reaffirm that under certain circumstances it not only acceptable but necessary to speak out. St. Catherine of Sienna, for example, confronted the pope.
As I stated in Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church, my earlier book on the papacy:
a. https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/12/04/new-book-clarifies-beliefs-and-corrects-misunderstandings-about-the-papacy/
b. "https://www.ignatius.com/Upon-This-Rock-P2535.aspx
A classic example of this occurred when Catherine of Siena (c. 1347–1380) severely reproved Pope Gregory XI and ultimately persuaded him to return the Papacy from Avignon to Rome.
“Catherine arrived at Avignon on June 18, 1376, and soon had a conference with Pope Gregory, to whom she had already written six times, ‘in an intolerably dictatorial tone, a little sweetened with expressions of her perfect Christian deference’ ”
(Alban Butler, Butler’s Lives of the Saints, rev. Herbert Thurston and Donald Attwater [Allen, Tex.: Christian Classics, 1995], 2:195–96).
Can anyone imagine a fourteenth-century woman reproving the Pope, especially with an “intolerably dictatorial tone”?
And imagine, she was not only canonized a saint, but she was declared a Doctor of the Church!
So much for the Pope’s insulation from reproof and criticism.
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI also commented on the acceptability of the faithful to critique the pope in certain instances.
One thing that should be remembered is that the Church also has bishops and it would certainly be correct for bishops to act with an attitude of collegiality toward the pope and to honestly discuss matters of difficulty with him without fear of reprisal and with respect for all.
Lay people can also disagree but it should be done with the utmost respect and bathed in prayer.
In short, no, the pope is not beyond criticism—and because of that fact and the confusion surrounding that issue.
I felt it was essential to add a section on this exact topic considering the situation we find ourselves in today.
CWR: What do you hope readers will gain most from this book?
Ray: My hope is the people will love the Church Jesus started and continues to build.
Jesus is the head of the Church, the pope is simply the successor of Peter the Royal Steward.
There have been good popes and bad popes, saintly examples and scandalous, those who serve well and those who have served poorly.
But they come and go and the Church marches on with Jesus as head.
Ignorance of history and truth is a dangerous thing.
Clarity of truth and knowledge of the the facts is liberating.
May all who read this book come away with a deep love for Jesus.
Deep love for His Church and the office of the papacy which has served us so well for two thousand year.
May it give us hope and confidence for our future.
Dec 6, 2018 10:04:24 #
This is what the book clarifies - that Catholicism isn't Biblical nor is it Christian.
Exposing heresies in the Catholic church - the pope
Hus wrote, “Neither is the pope the head nor are the cardinals the whole body of the holy, universal, catholic [i.e., true] church. For Christ alone is the head of that church.” Pointing out that most church leaders in his era actually despised the lordship of Christ, Hus said, “To such a low pitch is the clergy come that they hate those who preach often and call Jesus Christ Lord.”
Hus’s candor cost him his life. He was declared a heretic and burned at the stake in 1415.
More than a hundred years later, and already at odds with the papal establishment, Martin Luther read De Ecclesia. After finishing the book, he wrote to a friend, “I have hitherto taught and held all the opinions of Jan Hus unawares; so did John Staupitz. In short, we are all Hussites without knowing it.”
As the head of the Roman Catholic Church, the pope is often called the “Holy Father” and the “Vicar of Christ”—names and roles that only apply to God. He claims the ability to speak ex cathedra, exercising Godlike infallibility to add to and augment Scripture (Revelation 22:18). He wields unbiblical, unholy authority over his followers, usurping the headship of Christ and perverting the work of the Holy Spirit.
The Reformers understood that and declared it with unashamed boldness. As Martin Luther wrote to a friend, “We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist. . . . Personally I declare that I owe the Pope no other obedience than that to Antichrist.”
In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin said:
Some persons think us too severe and censorious, when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak, and whose language we adopt. And lest anyone should object, that we improperly pervert to the Roman pontiff those words of Paul, which belong to a different subject, I shall briefly show that they are not capable of any other interpretation than that which implies them to the papacy (John Allen’s translation, book four, chapter seven).
The words of Paul that Calvin referred to were from 2 Thessalonians, where the apostle described the coming Antichrist “who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God” (2 Thessalonians 2:4).
That same understanding was later reflected in the Westminster Confession of Faith, which says, “There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalts himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God” (25.6).
That doesn’t mean that the pope is the final Antichrist. There have been and will continue to be, as 1 John 2:18 says, many false teachers who embody the spirit of Antichrist. As the American Puritan Cotton Mather wrote in The Fall of Babylon, “The oracles of God foretold the rising of an Antichrist [i.e., one or more antichrists who embody the spirit of the final Antichrist] in the Christian church. And in the Pope of Rome, all the characteristics of that Antichrist are so marvelously answered that if any who read the Scriptures do not see it, there is a marvelous blindness on them.”
In a sermon titled “Pray for Jesus,” Charles Haddon Spurgeon exhorted his congregation that “it is the duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is. No sane man ought to raise a question. If it be not the popery in the church of Rome and in the church of England, there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name.”
He went on to say:
Popery anywhere, whether it be Anglican or Romish, is contrary to Christ’s gospel! And it is the Antichrist, and we ought to pray against it! It should be the daily prayer of every believer that Antichrist might be hurled like a millstone into the flood and sink to rise no more. If we can pray against error for Christ because it wounds Christ, because it robs Christ of His glory, because it puts sacramental efficacy in the place of His atonement and lifts a piece of bread into the place of the Savior, and a few drops of water into the place of the Holy Spirit, and puts a mere fallible man like ourselves up as the Vicar of Christ on earth—if we pray against it because it is against Him—we shall love the persons though we hate their errors! We shall love their souls though we loathe and detest their dogmas, and so the breath of our prayers will be sweetened because we turn our faces toward Christ when we pray.
In another sermon, titled “Christ Glorified,” Spurgeon said:
Christ did not redeem His church with His blood so the pope could come in and steal away the glory. He never came from heaven to earth and poured out His very heart that He might purchase His people so that a poor sinner, a mere man, should be set upon high to be admired by all the nations and to call himself God’s representative on earth! Christ has always been the head of His church.
In 1 Timothy 2:5, Paul said, “For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” The pope has assumed for himself a position of authority that does not need to be filled.
https://www.gty.org/library/blog/B130226/~
Exposing heresies in the Catholic church - the pope
Hus wrote, “Neither is the pope the head nor are the cardinals the whole body of the holy, universal, catholic [i.e., true] church. For Christ alone is the head of that church.” Pointing out that most church leaders in his era actually despised the lordship of Christ, Hus said, “To such a low pitch is the clergy come that they hate those who preach often and call Jesus Christ Lord.”
Hus’s candor cost him his life. He was declared a heretic and burned at the stake in 1415.
More than a hundred years later, and already at odds with the papal establishment, Martin Luther read De Ecclesia. After finishing the book, he wrote to a friend, “I have hitherto taught and held all the opinions of Jan Hus unawares; so did John Staupitz. In short, we are all Hussites without knowing it.”
As the head of the Roman Catholic Church, the pope is often called the “Holy Father” and the “Vicar of Christ”—names and roles that only apply to God. He claims the ability to speak ex cathedra, exercising Godlike infallibility to add to and augment Scripture (Revelation 22:18). He wields unbiblical, unholy authority over his followers, usurping the headship of Christ and perverting the work of the Holy Spirit.
The Reformers understood that and declared it with unashamed boldness. As Martin Luther wrote to a friend, “We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist. . . . Personally I declare that I owe the Pope no other obedience than that to Antichrist.”
In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin said:
Some persons think us too severe and censorious, when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak, and whose language we adopt. And lest anyone should object, that we improperly pervert to the Roman pontiff those words of Paul, which belong to a different subject, I shall briefly show that they are not capable of any other interpretation than that which implies them to the papacy (John Allen’s translation, book four, chapter seven).
The words of Paul that Calvin referred to were from 2 Thessalonians, where the apostle described the coming Antichrist “who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God” (2 Thessalonians 2:4).
That same understanding was later reflected in the Westminster Confession of Faith, which says, “There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalts himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God” (25.6).
That doesn’t mean that the pope is the final Antichrist. There have been and will continue to be, as 1 John 2:18 says, many false teachers who embody the spirit of Antichrist. As the American Puritan Cotton Mather wrote in The Fall of Babylon, “The oracles of God foretold the rising of an Antichrist [i.e., one or more antichrists who embody the spirit of the final Antichrist] in the Christian church. And in the Pope of Rome, all the characteristics of that Antichrist are so marvelously answered that if any who read the Scriptures do not see it, there is a marvelous blindness on them.”
In a sermon titled “Pray for Jesus,” Charles Haddon Spurgeon exhorted his congregation that “it is the duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is. No sane man ought to raise a question. If it be not the popery in the church of Rome and in the church of England, there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name.”
He went on to say:
Popery anywhere, whether it be Anglican or Romish, is contrary to Christ’s gospel! And it is the Antichrist, and we ought to pray against it! It should be the daily prayer of every believer that Antichrist might be hurled like a millstone into the flood and sink to rise no more. If we can pray against error for Christ because it wounds Christ, because it robs Christ of His glory, because it puts sacramental efficacy in the place of His atonement and lifts a piece of bread into the place of the Savior, and a few drops of water into the place of the Holy Spirit, and puts a mere fallible man like ourselves up as the Vicar of Christ on earth—if we pray against it because it is against Him—we shall love the persons though we hate their errors! We shall love their souls though we loathe and detest their dogmas, and so the breath of our prayers will be sweetened because we turn our faces toward Christ when we pray.
In another sermon, titled “Christ Glorified,” Spurgeon said:
Christ did not redeem His church with His blood so the pope could come in and steal away the glory. He never came from heaven to earth and poured out His very heart that He might purchase His people so that a poor sinner, a mere man, should be set upon high to be admired by all the nations and to call himself God’s representative on earth! Christ has always been the head of His church.
In 1 Timothy 2:5, Paul said, “For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” The pope has assumed for himself a position of authority that does not need to be filled.
https://www.gty.org/library/blog/B130226/~
Dec 6, 2018 10:12:29 #
Rose42 wrote:
This is what the book clarifies - that Catholicism... (show quote)
===============
You can recite all day long the Sola Scriptures Rose, but Christ does not allow that Sola Fide. It is not His authorized Gospel to teach his Words.
So, don't deceive people further, for Christ is watching.
Dec 6, 2018 10:14:35 #
Rose your full of crap compost.
Why don’t you just shut up about your Hostility with the Catholic Church.
Why don’t you talk about Jesus Christ why don’t you talk about the goodness of our Lord our Savior and his salvation.
I’m sick and tired of your idiotic ramblings because you can’t even believe what the Bible says.
You’re making crap up.
Disapprove what Matthew 18 says it’s explicit it can’t be changed and that’s all you’re trying to do is Muddled things up, you’re an protestant stooge an idiot-Simpleton . . .
You can’t can’t prove anything! Squat . . .
Your talking to a wall, your not converting anything, or anyone.
The Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ will never fail, and the gates of hell will not prevail.
All you do is spout evil, hatred and anti-Catholic bigotry and religious Prejudice.
You really suck as a Christian! ! !
Why don’t you just shut up about your Hostility with the Catholic Church.
Why don’t you talk about Jesus Christ why don’t you talk about the goodness of our Lord our Savior and his salvation.
I’m sick and tired of your idiotic ramblings because you can’t even believe what the Bible says.
You’re making crap up.
Disapprove what Matthew 18 says it’s explicit it can’t be changed and that’s all you’re trying to do is Muddled things up, you’re an protestant stooge an idiot-Simpleton . . .
You can’t can’t prove anything! Squat . . .
Your talking to a wall, your not converting anything, or anyone.
The Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ will never fail, and the gates of hell will not prevail.
All you do is spout evil, hatred and anti-Catholic bigotry and religious Prejudice.
You really suck as a Christian! ! !
Rose42 wrote:
This is what the book clarifies - that Catholicism... (show quote)
Dec 6, 2018 10:16:58 #
Doc110 wrote:
Rose your full of crap compost. br br Why don’t ... (show quote)
Already proven Doc. But you have to actually read the posts and read the Scriptures that prove Peter was not the rock and that the papacy isn't Biblical.
Dec 6, 2018 10:22:09 #
Rose42 wrote:
This is what the book clarifies - that Catholicism... (show quote)
Amen and Amen I was at the doctor yesterday and it was in a facility near a hospital called OSF which stands for the order of Saint Francis. After our discussions on here I was curious about some things and so while I was in the exam room I noticed that on the wall was a crucifix with the statue of Jesus still on the cross. That was the case in each and every exam rooms they all had the same crucifix with the statue of Jesus still hung on the cross. I truly believe that the Roman Catholics still have Jesus on the cross and he hasn't raised from the dead yet and they thus sacrifice Christ anew at every mass. Anyway very good post Rose42 thanks for the info regarding the Antichrist and the Pope.
Dec 6, 2018 10:29:57 #
You haven’t proven anything except you Protestant bigotry your religious prejudices.
Stand up and take a bow for your hatred for the Catholic Church.
That’s all you have proven. Jack compost.
You are think you have proven anti-Catholic liturgy liturgical doctrines and Protestant dogma that has been spouting off for 501 years.
You’re a protestant church is an apostate it’s a heresy . . . built on lies man-made lies of Luther Calvin’s Zwingli and other protestant reformers your church your protestant church was never founded by Jesus Christ it’s a schismatic Fractional divisional Protestant Church of 30,000 difrent sects.
That can’t even agree with them selves on Any little thing. That’s a because Martin Luther said it was OK to interpret the Bible any way that you want to choose it.
In 100 years there were over 100 different protestant churches by 2018 there are 30,000+ protestant churches because They want to think their own way doctrinally on their own.
You are just a Protestant little Pope.
Stand up and take a bow for your hatred for the Catholic Church.
That’s all you have proven. Jack compost.
You are think you have proven anti-Catholic liturgy liturgical doctrines and Protestant dogma that has been spouting off for 501 years.
You’re a protestant church is an apostate it’s a heresy . . . built on lies man-made lies of Luther Calvin’s Zwingli and other protestant reformers your church your protestant church was never founded by Jesus Christ it’s a schismatic Fractional divisional Protestant Church of 30,000 difrent sects.
That can’t even agree with them selves on Any little thing. That’s a because Martin Luther said it was OK to interpret the Bible any way that you want to choose it.
In 100 years there were over 100 different protestant churches by 2018 there are 30,000+ protestant churches because They want to think their own way doctrinally on their own.
You are just a Protestant little Pope.
Rose42 wrote:
Already proven Doc. But you have to actually read the posts and read the Scriptures that prove Peter was not the rock and that the papacy isn't Biblical.
Already proven Doc. But you have to actually read the posts and read the Scriptures that prove Peter was not the rock and that the papacy isn't Biblical.
Dec 6, 2018 10:38:52 #
Balmer,
you are also a hateful person.
Then why do you go to the hospital that his Catholic why don’t you go to an assembly of God church maybe you’ll get more anti-Catholic ate there.
And you can spread around your nonsense you’re just a useless protestant that passes on compost to other people
yeah you’re a little school boy bully and you have nothing good to say you don’t even understand the reason why Jesus Christ is on the crucifix.
All you can do is spout off you’re stupid protestant bare cross
why don’t you look it up in the dictionary or the Internet orn why Catholics have Jesus Christ remembered on the cross.
Are you do is spout off protestant ignorance and complain.
All you do is whine on the OPP religious forum.
So what are you doing for the worlds problems and to your fellow men and women and children?
Your a waste of God’s precious time and money.
you are also a hateful person.
Then why do you go to the hospital that his Catholic why don’t you go to an assembly of God church maybe you’ll get more anti-Catholic ate there.
And you can spread around your nonsense you’re just a useless protestant that passes on compost to other people
yeah you’re a little school boy bully and you have nothing good to say you don’t even understand the reason why Jesus Christ is on the crucifix.
All you can do is spout off you’re stupid protestant bare cross
why don’t you look it up in the dictionary or the Internet orn why Catholics have Jesus Christ remembered on the cross.
Are you do is spout off protestant ignorance and complain.
All you do is whine on the OPP religious forum.
So what are you doing for the worlds problems and to your fellow men and women and children?
Your a waste of God’s precious time and money.
bahmer wrote:
Amen and Amen I was at the doctor yesterday and it... (show quote)
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.