Does the Bible teach the
Doctrine of the Papacy?
Third Rebuttal Statement
Ben Rosado
Dear Moses,
Well since you said that the burden of proof about Jesus speaking
those words in Aramaic is upon me, I will do my best to show why we believe
this.
Jesus was a poor man. A carpenter.
He did not go and study Greek, I think. His life was a very simple life
and He worked with His hands. Now the Lord did know how to read. We
know this because He read from the scriptures in the synagogue. The
scriptures were all written in Jesus' language. The
Hebrew language - Aramaic. Also known as Hebrew.
But I have another reason why I believe that the Lord did
not speak Greek when speaking with the Apostles and all the others who followed
Him. He was preaching to and speaking with Jews, His own people.
They all spoke Aramaic. So for me, it seems only reasonable for the Lord
to speak to them in their native language. Wouldn't you have if you were
speaking to your own people?
On the other side of the coin, the question could be
asked: then why did the apostles write the gospels in Greek? That
is a great question.
I believe one good reason why they did is because when the
gospels were being written, the language that was most expressive of philosophy
and teaching was Greek. Also, the gospels were being not just written for
a Jewish audience. The Apostles had already come to the new realization
that the Lord wanted this gospel preached to all people, regardless of
nationality.
Greek was a universal language and so the Apostles chose to
write in Greek, a great language of the time. And a
universal language.
But really, I think there is much more to say than to
discuss this. There are so many other points to bring up about the
papacy. But I am glad we were able to discuss this at some length.
And also, I am glad to hear that it seems that you are now
agreeing with the connection between these two statements:
And so I change your name to rock,
and on this rock I will build my church.
If you see the connection, why do you then afterwards say
there is no connection? Which is it, do you agree that the word and
connect the sentence or not? You seem to be saying two different things
Moses. Please I may be just unsure of your speaking style. Just let
me know if you agree with the connecting word and.
Because in grammar, regardless of language, the connection
is clear: Jesus is speaking of the same rock in both lines.
Now I am sure that the question then is: Why then did
the Greek written gospel have two different words used -
Basically, the reason why is because if it was written as
"And so I say you are petros (Rock, feminine)
and on this
That would be kind of funny. Since the Lord
spoke Aramaic this never happened. But does anyone think that Jesus would
have given Simon a girls name? I think that
would be a very cruel thing to do to Simon. and
I am sure that Jesus highly respected Simon. Because you see, that word
So what do you think? Would Jesus have spoken Greek
and named Simon a girls name -
I hope that helps you to think about what is being said
here.
Okay so with regard to Unam
Sanctum and your statements about it, I hope I can clarify what the church
teaches about this. You may read your Catholic Catechism if you want to
hear the official doctrine stated. It is CCC 836-848 I believe.
But here is what I want to say to help explain what the
church teaches about it. Mind you, I am not contradicting anything that
the church teaches, I am only explaining it it my own
way. But it is the Catholic Church's stand. And I am a catholic
Christian, as are all Catholics
You see for us, we firmly want to explain how we have been made
the custodians of the bible. This is why we believe this: Since the
bible was God-breathed and given to only the catholic
Church, many many years ago, it has always been our
own teaching. I know this is hard to understand for non-catholic
Christians! but please try to understand:
The bible had to be put into one book. Before the
year 397 A.D. there was only many books floating around the various churches,
not under one cover and many of those "books" are not even in
the new testament today.
The catholic church held a council
in 397 A.D. and decided, with the guidance of the holy Spirit, which books were
to be included and which books were not to be included in the new
testament. This is the smae new testament you
read today. The catholic church compiled the
books under the inspiration of God.
Notice I say under the inspiration. Because no
one could ever decide which books would be in the bible unless they were guided
by God. We were then and yes, we still
are! After all, in the year 397 A.D. that council was led and
administered by the Pope and bishops and leaders of the church. It was a
purely catholic council. There was after all, no
protestants in existence at this point in time. The church was
strictly catholic. This is the church that gave us the bible, from God's
breath.
But if you think there was any other church in existence at
this time, I just have to disagree with that.
because of two reasons:
If there was another church besides the catholic
church, lets say a protestant minded church, why didn't God have them
decide which books should be in the bible?
Why was it the cahtolic church
who handed down and preserved the bible for generation after generation until
even the day Martin Luther got it from the catholic church?
And another reason why I don't believe that there were ever
protestants before the 16th century is because
there are absolutely no records of such a church before Luther came along.
You may say there were protestant groups and this and that,
but where are they? They don't even exist in one paragraph of history
down for 1500 years.
But the catholic church did
exist and handed the bible down for all generations. God gave it to us
you know.
Okay, phew. Now that that has been said, this is why
the church.
believes that protestants
are a part of the flock of Peter. Because whether you realize it or not,
you are learning from the teaching that God gave to us. The teaching we
were given to spread over the whole world. the
gospel of Jesus Christ. And that Gospel is the message of Jesus; which
includes the church within that message. Because part of what Jesus did
was He founded the church!
If this is too hard to accept, I am sorry. But you
really do belong to the catholic church to a certain
degree. Protestants may not accept all that the Church has given to the
world, but you do accept some. And that is what makes you Christians.
I think I did not explain myself well enough when I talked
about "if you can deny this about the Church being the one who has
selected, through the holy Spirit, which books to include and not-include in
the bible."
Let me make my point in a different way, hopefully this
will be more clear.
What I meant to say was this:
IF you beleive that the catholic
church was inspired by the holy Spirit when it put the canon together, then it
follows that the catholic church (the only church at that time) was the
church of God.
And since the catholic church at
that time believed everything catholic that we believe today, (sacraments and
church) it would mean that the catholic church today is also the
that is my first point.
But secondly,
I wanted to explain that
If you don't believe that the catholic
church was inspired by God in 397 A.D. when it put the canon together,
then that should lead you to conclude that:
The catholic church may have made
errors in choosing the right and wrong books! (Since God was not guiding it in
its decision)
So, the new testament you have today (the same
one we put together) is probably not the right books.
This would be because you do not believe that God was with
us then.
So that would have made us merely a human institution
somehow choosing between all those books with miraculous accuracy. I
mentioned all the books in a previous response. There are a lot of
them. But the Church chose all the correct books for the new testament.
So whichever of the two stances you decide to chose, either
the catholic church is the
Let me now just say a few things about the
papacy. I really hope to present this in a way that helps everyone to
understand that the papacy is not an evil idea, but a very blessed gift from
God to His church.
Every church needs a pastor. This makes perfect
sense.
The church founded by Jesus also needs a pastor. For the same reason.
If you don't agree, then why go to a church with a
pastor? You could after all just have a bible in the front of the
room. But no of course not. There has to
be a pastor!
And so, here are the main responsibilities of a pastor:
Leads the flock
Guides the flock
feeds the flock
strengthens the flock
protects the flock
inspires the flock
I hope that you can agree with me on this. These are
qualities not of the people in the seats but of the pastor of the church.
Everyone knows this. Otherwise try and get up in front this Sunday and
start doing all this. the pastor will probably
escort you out. But of course, he must do his job.
and
now I would like to show some verses from scripture in support of Simon Peter
as the Pastor of God's Church on earth (with Jesus as our Lord and
Savior):
John 21, 15-18.
Peter is told to "feed my lambs", "tend my
sheep", "feed my sheep."
Luke 22, 31-32
Peter must be the one to strengthen the others.
Peter is mentioned in the bible 155 times and the other
apostles combined only 130 times. He seems to be a very important
person. Not equal to the other apostles at all,
if looked at in this light.
John 20, 4-6
Peter is treated with great respect by John and the beloved
disciple waits for Peter to go in first. A sign of
reverence.
Matt. 10, 2; Mark 1, 36;
3, 16; Luke 6, 14-16; Acts 1, 3; 2, 37; 5, 29
Peter is always mentioned first. Is this a
coincidence or is there some reason why this is done?
And also
Only Peter receives the Keys. They are not given to
all the apostles if you have noticed. Jesus only gives them to Simon
Peter.
There are so many scriptures where Peter leads the group!
Peter has the faith to walk on water and the faith to be the one to speak at
the first pentecost.
If the apostles are equals there would be some equality shown. but where is this equality? the
scriptures show a group of men chosen by Jesus, with Peter as the chief
Apostle.
You see, The papacy is God's way
of strengthening the brethren. The Pastor of God's church does all the
things a pastor must do. He leads, feeds, guides, strengthens,
enlightens, and inspires.
If God's Church does not have a pastor, then why does the
church you go to have a pastor?
That is because having a pastor is necessary, since
Jesus ascended into heaven and is sitting at the right hand of God the
Father. That is why the church has a pope!
May God bless you with forgiveness and love in His One
church.
Ben