How I led Catholics Out of the Church

Catholic Educators ^ | September 2005 | Steve Wood

[NYer]

As I understand it, scriptures are archaic written verses that some men claim to have received directly from God, or are interpretations of what God has said to men, or are supposedly direct quotes from Jesus Christ.

Of the approximately 300 Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, approximately 2/3 of them came from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) which included the deuterocanonical books that the Protestants later removed. This is additional evidence that Jesus and the apostles viewed the deuterocanonical books as part of canon of the Old Testament. Some examples:

Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; John 1:23 / Isaiah 40:3 - make "His paths straight." Hebrew - make "level in the desert a highway."

Mark 7:6-8 – Jesus quotes Isaiah 29:13 from the Septuagint – “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.”

Rom. 9:27 / Isaiah 10:22 - only a remnant of them "will be saved." Hebrew - only a remnant of them "will return."

1 Cor. 1:19 / Isaiah 29:14 - "I will destroy" the wisdom of the wise. Hebrew - wisdom of their wise men "shall perish."

God spoke to us through His chosen people. He promised them a Messiah. He came and spoke to us again. Rejoice in His message of Salvation!

[getmeouttaPalmBeachCounty_FL]

This article has fully confused me. Leaving a placemarker for tomorrow.

[TomSmedley]

I find it hard to believe that anyone who truly and in good faith researches the Early Church Fathers can come away not converting to Catholicism.

Meet the exception to test your rule!

[HarleyD]

All of what you've stated is irrelevant. While there is no doubt that Peter played a substantial role in developing the early church and was a great man of God used mightily by Him there is nothing in your long list of scriptures to indicate Peter was some sort of Pope. This is RCC tradition-nothing more. Peter "walking on water" has nothing to do with it.

I've noticed that you did not bring up in your list some of Peter's failings. I'll not bring them up here because it is totally inappropriate for me to cast dispersion on this great man of God. It's like talking about Mary.

[NYer]

While there is no doubt that Peter played a substantial role in developing the early church and was a great man of God used mightily by Him there is nothing in your long list of scriptures to indicate Peter was some sort of Pope.

I did say that was a start .... now, here's the rest of the story.

Mark 3:16; John 1:42 – Jesus renames Simon "Kepha" in Aramaic which literally means "rock." This was an extraordinary thing for Jesus to do, because "rock" was not even a name in Jesus' time. Jesus did this, not to give Simon a strange name, but to identify his new status among the apostles. When God changes a person's name, He changes their status.

Gen. 17:5; 32:28; 2 Kings 23:34; Acts 9:4; 13:9 - for example, in these verses, we see that God changes the following people's names and, as a result, they become special agents of God: Abram to Abraham; Jacob to Israel, Eliakim to Jehoiakim, Saul to Paul.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus said in Aramaic, you are "Kepha" and on this "Kepha" I will build my Church. In Aramaic, "kepha" means a massive stone.

Matt. 7:24 - Jesus, like the wise man, builds His house on the rock (Peter), not on grain of sand (Simon) so the house will not fall.

Luke 6:48 - the house (the Church) built upon the rock (Peter) cannot be shaken by floods (which represent the heresies, schisms, and scandals that the Church has faced over the last 2,000 years). Floods have occurred, but the Church still remains on its solid rock foundation.

Matt. 16:21 - it is also important to note that it was only after Jesus established Peter as leader of the Church that He began to speak of His death and departure. This is because Jesus had now appointed His representative on earth.

John 21:15 - Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus "more than these," referring to the other apostles. Jesus singles Peter out as the leader of the apostolic college.

John 21:15-17 - Jesus selects Peter to be the chief shepherd of the apostles when He says to Peter, "feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep." Peter will shepherd the Church as Jesus’ representative.

Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus also prays that Peter's faith may not fail and charges Peter to be the one to strengthen the other apostles - "Simon, satan demanded to have you (plural, referring to all the apostles) to sift you (plural) like wheat, but I prayed for you (singular) that your (singular) faith may not fail, and when you (singular) have turned again, strengthen your brethren.

Acts 1,2,3,4,5,8,15 - no one questions Peter's authority to speak for the Church, declare anathemas, and resolve doctrinal debates. Peter is the rock on which the Church is built who feeds Jesus’ sheep and whose faith will not fail.

2 Sam. 7:16; Psalm 89:3-4; 1 Chron.17:12,14 - God promises to establish the Davidic kingdom forever on earth.

Matt. 1:1 - Matthew clearly establishes this tie of David to Jesus. Jesus is the new King of the new House of David, and the King will assign a chief steward to rule over the house while the King is in heaven.

Luke 1:32 - the archangel Gabriel announces to Mary that her Son would be given "the throne of His father David."

Matt. 16:19 - Jesus gives Peter the "keys of the kingdom of heaven." While most Protestants argue that the kingdom of heaven Jesus was talking about is the eternal state of glory (as if Peter is up in heaven letting people in), the kingdom of heaven Jesus is speaking of actually refers to the Church on earth. In using the term "keys," Jesus was referencing Isaiah 22 (which is the only place in the Bible where keys are used in the context of a kingdom).

Isaiah 22:22 - in the old Davidic kingdom, there were royal ministers who conducted the liturgical worship and bound the people in teaching and doctrine. But there was also a Prime Minister or chief steward of the kingdom who held the keys. Jesus gives Peter these keys to His earthly kingdom, the Church. This representative has decision-making authority over the people - when he shuts, no one opens. See also Job 12:14.

Rev. 1:18; 3:7; 9:1; 20:1 - Jesus' "keys" undeniably represent authority. By using the word "keys," Jesus gives Peter authority on earth over the new Davidic kingdom, and this was not seriously questioned by anyone until the Protestant reformation 1,500 years later after Peter’s investiture.

Matt. 16:19 - whatever Peter binds or looses on earth is bound or loosed in heaven / when the Prime Minister to the King opens, no one shuts. This "binding and loosing" authority allows the keeper of the keys to establish "halakah," or rules of conduct for the members of the kingdom he serves.  Peter's "keys" fit into the "gates" of Hades which also represent Peter’s pastoral authority over souls.

Matt. 23:2-4 - the "binding and loosing" terminology used by Jesus was understood by the Jewish people. For example, Jesus said that the Pharisees "bind" heavy burdens but won't move ("loose") them with their fingers. Peter and the apostles have the new binding and loosing authority over the Church of the New Covenant.

Matt. 16:19 - Peter holds keys to this new Davidic kingdom and rules while the real King of David (Jesus) is in heaven.

Luke 12:41-42 - when Peter asks Jesus if the parable of the master and the kingdom was meant just for the apostles or for all people, Jesus rhetorically confirms to Peter that Peter is the chief steward over the Master's household of God. "Who then, (Peter) is that faithful and wise steward whom his master will make ruler over His household..?"

Ezek. 37:24-25 - David shall be king over them forever and they will have one shepherd. Jesus is our King, and Peter is our earthly shepherd.

Jer. 33:17 - Jeremiah prophesies that David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the earthly House of Israel. Either this is a false prophecy, or David has a successor of representatives throughout history.

Dan. 2:44 - Daniel prophesies an earthly kingdom that will never be destroyed. Either this is a false prophecy, or the earthly kingdom requires succession.

Isa. 22:20 - in the old Davidic kingdom, Eliakim succeeds Shebna as the chief steward of the household of God. The kingdom employs a mechanism of dynastic succession. King David was dead for centuries, but his kingdom is preserved through a succession of representatives.

Isa. 22:19 - Shebna is described as having an "office" and a "station." An office, in order for it to be an office, has successors. In order for an earthly kingdom to last, a succession of representatives is required. This was the case in the Old Covenant kingdom, and it is the case in the New Covenant kingdom which fulfills the Old Covenant. Jesus our King is in heaven, but He has appointed a chief steward over His household with a plan for a succession of representatives.

Isa. 22:21 - Eliakim is called “father” or “papa” of God's people. The word Pope used by Catholics to describe the chief steward of the earthly kingdom simply means papa or father in Italian. This is why Catholics call the leader of the Church "Pope." The Pope is the father of God's people, the chief steward of the earthly kingdom and Christ's representative on earth.

Isa. 22:22 - we see that the keys of the kingdom pass from Shebna to Eliakim. Thus, the keys are used not only as a symbol of authority, but also to facilitate succession. The keys of Christ's kingdom have passed from Peter to Linus all the way to our current Pope with an unbroken lineage for almost 2,000 years.

Acts 1:20 - we see in the early Church that successors are immediately chosen for the apostles' offices. Just as the Church replaced Judas, it also replaced Peter with a successor after Peter's death.

John 21:15-17; Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus' creation of Peter's office as chief shepherd with the keys passed to Linus, Cletus, Clement I, all the way to our current Holy Father.

[GAB-1955]

Stipulating that Christ is referring to Peter, is He referring to Peter as the founder of the Church, or is He referring to Peter's confession, or is He referring to Peter as the prototype believer? We believe the latter two, and our position sophistry in the light of other Scripture. Jesus is the Founder of the church. His words that if men did not praise him, the rocks and stones would cry out show that His purposes would be achieved without the cooperation of men, though it was His pleasure it did.

Protestantism did not alter the Church; Protestantism restored the Church to positions closer to the Church Fathers, by relying solely on Scripture, solely on the grace of God, solely on faith as the instrument of grace, and solely on salvation being God's work alone. You may disagree with this. It's pretty clear that salvation is of the Lord alone; and He has allowed formulaic disunity of churches to provide a place for all His Body.

[HarleyD]

Well, you’re right. Nag, nag, nag. That’s all I ever seem to do. If it’s any consolation I generally spend most of my time nagging the Protestants. Nobody pays any attention on their side either.

The EO isn’t moving toward the RCC. The RCC started moving towards the EO point of view 1500 years ago and formally adopted the position at the Council of Trent. I’m congenial with the Eastern Orthodox simply because they have been consistent in their heritage while the RCC and most Protestants have not. What was the western church’s original belief is all but abandoned. But we're keeping the lights on.

Blessings to you as well.

[HarleyD]

Again a mismash of ideas. All this is like saying, "Mary was a virgin so the Immaculate Conception must be true." (Along with Mary being a perpetual virgin-but that's another post.) Part of it is true (Mary being a virgin) while part is steeped in tradition (Immaculate Conception).

Each of your ideas like "keys of the Kingdom" or Peter being the "Rock" are easy to refute and I believe I used several passages that shows this not to be the case. The "binding" was given to all disciples as you admitted. (Matt 18)

As far as Christ establishing His church-the issue is meaningless since no one is arguing that point. You interpret Church to be the holy Catholic church. I interpret church to be the holy catholic church. Our interpretation of what constitutes "church" differs. You've been told that it is the Rome bureaucracy. I say it isn't.

The fact of the matter is that the Eastern Orthodox can trace their heritage as far back as the RCC but they have never recognized the authority of the Pope.

[jo kus]

To me this was the primary difference between the eastern (synergistic) and western (monergistic) churches. It was confirmed at the Council of Orange but over time the RCC abandon this in favor (synergistic) view. The Protestant Reformation was a shift back to the monergistic view but it to was shortly abandoned (and is being abandoned) in favor of the synergistic view.

An interesting theory, but the Church Father writings don't support it. I am not familiar with ANY Church Father who wrote that God did EVERYTHING and man did not cooperate in his own salvation. The Scriptures support this notion, most evident in Phil 2:12-13. The idea that the Protestant Reformation was returning to something that never was is being overstated. If you could, I would appreciate if you could point out the specific phrase in the Council of Orange that described total monergism as the salvation formula of Catholicism.

Regards

[wagglebee]

Call me irresponsible then!! I'm only doing what I'm good at! LOL

Now you're just bragging!!!

[Conservative til I die]

Stipulating that Christ is referring to Peter, is He referring to Peter as the founder of the Church, or is He referring to Peter's confession, or is He referring to Peter as the prototype believer? We believe the latter two, and our position sophistry in the light of other Scripture. Jesus is the Founder of the church. His words that if men did not praise him, the rocks and stones would cry out show that His purposes would be achieved without the cooperation of men, though it was His pleasure it did.

Yes, of course Jesus is the founder of the Church. And Peter was the foundation rock upon which Christ promised to build His Church. I mean it's clear as day in the Scripture. For you to say it was His faith or His profession of faith that is the foundation requires a lot of reading into.

[jo kus]

You're speaking of human wisdom ?

I'd wager that we both know what that's worth, don't we ?

I don't think "common sense" was what Paul was speaking about when he had a disdain for "philosophy! While truth is not always evident, we don't need to have all facts given to us explicitly in Scripture. But it IS implicit. If the devil is the father of lies (as God Himself said), it is presumed that the devil is aware of the truth - one must know truth to be able to twist it. Recall, Lucifer saw God face to face. He is aware of the truth. He refuses to abide in it.

Lucifer is proud. So proud that his will of choosing himself over God is irrevocable. For him to have an irrevocable choice, he must have been aware of what the truth was in its fullest definition. The Book of Revelation suggests that Satan will NEVER repent. Thus, this suggests that his will is irrevocable - and thus, is aware of the truth. If he wasn't aware of the truth, there would be a chance that he would repent. Implicitly in Scripture, then, we find that Lucifer is aware of the truth, but will NEVER follow it.

Brother in Christ

[jo kus]

The fact of the matter is that the Eastern Orthodox can trace their heritage as far back as the RCC but they have never recognized the authority of the Pope

Absolutely false! I just got done researching this while talking with another Orthodox Christian. It is amazing the harmony that existed regarding who Peter was and the role of the Bishop of Rome. It wasn't until the late 700's when the Orthodox even began to consider your opinion (because of the Filioque, not Peter's successor wasn't qualified). For example, St. John Chrysostom (c. 400 AD) quotes some 90 times the primacy, no, WORLDLY rulership over the Church. If you like, I can post some quotes, but to keep this succinct, I'll give you the option to continue. ALL Seven Ecumenical Councils that the East recognize noted that the Pope was the de facto leader - the EAST THEMSELVES used Mat 16:18 and other verses to expound on the Pope's authority.

Regards

[jo kus]

Who is the "HE" that "people" are supposed to listen too? The one true God that has no problem communicating to those individuals who seek him?

Or the rabbi,priest or pastor who claims to have special privileged council with God and/or God's will?

The "he" are qualified "apostles" sent by the Church, not self-proclaimed men who thought that they could interpret the Scriptures AGAINST how Christendom interpreted them for 1500 years. WHY should someone believe that Luther is right, and 1500 years of Christendom are wrong? And for that matter, how can Pastor X KNOW his interpretation is right vs. Pastor Y across the street at a different denomination? God gave the Church the power to teach and preach to the world. He didn't promise to come individually to preach to each person. He left that to His Church.

I often wonder how much actual faith in God exists in any organized religion.

Read the lives of the saints...That is the faith that "organized religion" brings out. Don't judge a religion by those who are merely nominal practicioners. As to doctrinal "carping", consider reading the Gospels. Jesus, out of love, often times argued over doctrine with the Pharisees, trying to bring the truth to them. "The truth will set you free". And most people on this forum believe they have the truth.

Regards

[HarleyD]

When the EO recognizes the Pope's authority please let me know.

In your research you should have found that the EO never recognized the fundamental principles coming from the Council of Orange (450AD) which they believe was approved by "a minor council" (so I've been told). Nor do they enjoy the writings of Augustine (350AD) who they consider to be a minor and "irrelevant" saint. Numbered among many of their founding saints that they considered of primary importance you'll find John Cassian who was a student of Pelagius and believed by many (including the Catholic Church) of founding Semi-Pelagianism. All of this is much earlier than 700AD.

I too have looked extensively at this issue. It always comes back to Pelagius-Augustine. East Church-West Church. Synergism-Monergism. If I bought into all the other teaching of the RCC I'd be an Augustinian monk.

[Quester]

For example, St. John Chrysostom (c. 400 AD) quotes some 90 times the primacy, no, WORLDLY rulership over the Church.

And ... Jesus said that such wasn't to be in His church ...

Mark 10:42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.

43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:

44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.

45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

[samiam1972]

"Now you're just bragging!!!"

I'm not bragging! I'm humbly making the most of the talents God gave me! *snicker*

[conservonator]

What!! nothing from Romans??? If it's not in Romans, it's just not worth basing doctrine on ;)

[Quester]

If the devil is the father of lies (as God Himself said), it is presumed that the devil is aware of the truth - one must know truth to be able to twist it. Recall, Lucifer saw God face to face. He is aware of the truth. He refuses to abide in it.

Lucifer is proud. So proud that his will of choosing himself over God is irrevocable. For him to have an irrevocable choice, he must have been aware of what the truth was in its fullest definition. The Book of Revelation suggests that Satan will NEVER repent. Thus, this suggests that his will is irrevocable - and thus, is aware of the truth. If he wasn't aware of the truth, there would be a chance that he would repent. Implicitly in Scripture, then, we find that Lucifer is aware of the truth, but will NEVER follow it.

The created being which has seen the Creator face to face ... and yet, ... declares the following (in bold)... has become self-deluded ...

Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

[jo kus]

When the EO recognizes the Pope's authority please let me know.

It WAS recognized, just like it WAS recognized by Martin Luther in 1517. Unfortunately, pride gets in the way of obedience.

In your research you should have found that the EO never recognized the fundamental principles coming from the Council of Orange...Nor do they enjoy the writings of Augustine (350AD)

Augustine was born in 354 AD. What specifically are you refering to? Recall, he was a Manichaean for quite some time before he converted to Catholicism. One must be careful when citing Augustine before this conversion, especially considering it is a heresy that believes in salvation by knowledge. So of course, one can find contradictory writings when looking at the entire corpus of Augustine.

There were two Councils of Oranges. The one in 441 was of little importance. The one in 529 was more of substance. Which one are you refering to? The second one, I presume, as it addressed Semi-Pelagianism.

The Council covers quite a bit of material. Could you reiterate and specify what EXACTLY you found that the Council "moved away from" regarding the faith of 200 AD? Does the Council deny anything that went before it? Do earlier councils make it clear that we are saved strictly by God's grace WITHOUT our cooperation? Even reading the Council of Orange of 529, where does the West imply that we are saved without our cooperation?

The acts of the council, which were signed by the bishops, the pretorian prefect Liberius and seven other distinguished laymen, were forwarded to Rome and approved by Boniface II on 25 January, 531. They consequently enjoyed œcumenical authority. I don't know where you are getting the info that the East did not accept this council PRIOR to the Great Schism.

And finally, the "research" that I was refering to before was involved with the Pope, not so much as the subject above. I have read about the subject from Pre-Nicea Fathers and I didn't find the idea that Luther came up with regarding total depravity and that man could not cooperate. I will post some if you like. But as far as the Eastern Orthodox and Orange, and the rest of your theory, I have not done the research. Catholicism believes in predestination, but not the Calvin/Luther model. And frankly, some of St. Augustine's writings as a Catholic were condemned, such as his idea of "mass damnatia" - all unbaptized babies go to hell.

I wouldn't be surprised if the East has Pelagian attitudes - it can be a fine line to walk between Semi-Pelagianism and Orthodox views on salvation and our cooperation. Looking to Phil 2:12-13, though, it is clear that God graces us AND we are involved in our salvation to some degree.

Brother in Christ