How the (Catholic) Church Built Western Civilization

Zenit News Agency ^ | September 26, 2005

[conservonator]

Not impossible, with God all things are possible, but Christ established a Church for a reason. You reject it at your peril, but as a devotee of Scripture, you knew that already.

[Tao Yin]

Maybe I should pray to Mary? Or is there a patron saint of understanding who I can pray to?

[conservonator]

Maybe I should pray to Mary? Or is there a patron saint of understanding who I can pray to?

Mary would be great since she always points to her son: "do what ever He tells you". But the Holy Spirit is who is the font of knowledge and understanding.

[mike182d]

Matthew 16 has Jesus calling Peter a rock. He then says to build on the rock. So the question remains, is a rock called Peter the same as the rock to build on.

Build what on? That's the question. No Catholic in the history of the Christian Church has ever alleged that Peter is the source and summit of one's Salvation. It is, and always has been Christ. Note that Matthew 16:18 is the only time in the Gospels that Jesus mentions the word "Church." The Church is not Jesus Christ, the two are different entities. The Church is an institution that Christ is in possession of - "I will build my Church." Salvation has always been "built" on the Word of God but His Church - whose job it is to protect the Word of God from misinterpretation or error - is "built" on Peter.

When Jesus called Peter a rock he was making a point. Calling a man a rock does not make it solid on which to build. Because later in Matthew 16...

Are you suggesting that of the three times God specifically has ever changed someone's name - and two of those times is when men were given the greatest positions of honor before the Lord - that Simon's name was changed to Peter as an example to the world of what not to do? The following passage where Christ calls Peter "satan" concerns itself with Christ training Peter. As it often does, his pride surfaces and Christ has to put it in its place for him, and being given the keys to the kingdom of heaven is no exception.

Furthermore, you're still ignoring the fact that Jesus Christ gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter. You're story is a well-contrived attempt at getting around the establishment of the Church, but it is still completely illogical. If we are to believe your proposition, in effect we have the following situation:

Jesus: "Listen up, everyone. I alone am the rock upon which anything is built. Now, to illustrate my point, I am changing Simon's name to "rock" so that you will know that you cannot trust men. And to further illustrate my point, I am going to entrust onto this man that I am instructing you not to trust, the very keys to the kingdom of heaven."

Is that what you're suggesting happened?

The point is that Jesus is the Christ, and this is the rock on which you can build, because all other rocks shift from the things of God to the things of men.

The point is that if the Truth of God were left onto each and every individual for their own assesment and interpretation, there would be no clear understanding what was meant. If you need proof of this, look at the 30,000 different Protestant denominations - all using the same book - who believe vastly different things about Christ.

The point is that I, personally, have never seen Jesus Christ, I did not witness his actual death and resurrection 2000 years ago, nor was I there to actually hear them teach. Therefore, everything I think I know about Jesus Christ was handed unto me by another person. The point is: who's story do you trust? Before the Bible existed, how did the first Christians know what they were being told was true? The authority of the Apostles. With Peter as the Rock, we're not talking about salvation, we're talking about the means God gave the world to know what is true when 30,000 different groups disagree over what Jesus Christ's salvific mission was.

Lastly, give me one writing from the first Christians that states what you do here. You criticize Catholics for only being able to provide a letter from the mere 3rd Century supporting our position but you cannot provide anything from the early Christian Church for 1500 years supporting yours.

[Tao Yin]

I set the Bible apart from the writings of uninspired men. If I could find writings that supported my views, what use would it be? Fallible men are still fallible, even when they agree with me.

You talk about the use of the word church as a physical institution and bureaucracy. It is not. In the Bible, the word church has two meanings. First, the individual congregations. Second, the Body of Christ, all those who are saved.

The Catholic Church is not a church at all, it is a synod: Those who walk in faith together. The Catholic Church is made up of churches and some members of the Catholic Church are members of the Body of Christ, but not all.

When the word church is used in the Bible to describe the Body of Christ, rather than individual churches, Jesus is always the head with the saints as the body. When used this way, the church represents only those who are saved.

I do admit that I do not understand the keys given to Peter. I'm OK with that. The keys are never mentioned again. If the keys are an integral part of the Gospel, why are they only mentioned in one of the Gospels? Why are the keys never mentioned as part of the Good News?

The power to bind and loose is given to all the apostles.

The keys do not affect how others treat Peter.

Galatians 2:11
[ Paul Opposes Peter ] When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.

Just because I do not understand the keys, does not mean I must to agree with someone who wrote about the keys in 220, so his organization could have worldly power.

[Tao Yin]

I shivered a little when you wrote that it would be great to pray to Mary. I just find it repulsive: the idea of praying to a dead, created being.

I don't have a problem asking my live friend to pray for me. But no where does God promise that the dead can hear me.

[conservonator]

Are those in heaven dead? Or are they far more alive than you and I can even begin to conceive? Read Revelation 5:8 who's prayers are being presented? Surely the saints in heaven don't need an intercessor do they? I wouldn't think so, so it appears that our prayers to those in heaven are presented to our Lord.

[Tao Yin]

snicker, snicker...

That's funny. Why in the world would you think that those prayers were to the elders?

Who gave the elder's their thrones, crowns, white garments, harps, or golden bowls? Why would you assume that they were given empty bowls that they themselves filled? That's just funny!

There is no promise that the dead can hear our prayers.

There is no promise that the dead will interceed.

All prayers in the Bible are directed directly towards God.

[mike182d]

I don't have a problem asking my live friend to pray for me. But no where does God promise that the dead can hear me.

Why wouldn't they be able to hear you? Our God is a God of the living, not the dead. All who die in Christ are really alive.

Let me ask you a question: did Moses die?

[Tao Yin]

Ha, ha, very funny.

In the Bible, there is no promise that anyone, except for God, can hear our prayers. Period. No doubt about it. End of discussion.

In the Bible, there is no example of Christian prayer except to God. Period. No doubt about it. End of discussion.

I guess you can claim oral tradition or inspiration. I'd be curious to know year that started.

[k2blader]

Minus the part in parentheses, the title is quite true.

But what are we, the Church, doing today?

[NYer]

Minus the part in parentheses, the title is quite true.

What Church? Catholic? Scripture reveals this Church to be the one Jesus Christ built upon the rock of Saint Peter (Matt. 16:18). By giving Peter the keys of authority (Matt. 16:19), Jesus appointed Peter as the chief steward over His earthly kingdom (cf. Isaiah. 22:19-22). Jesus also charged Peter to be the source of strength for the rest of the apostles (Luke 22:32) and the earthly shepherd of Jesus' flock (John 21:15-17). Jesus further gave Peter, and the apostles and elders in union with him, the power to bind and loose in heaven what they bound and loosed on earth. (Matt. 16:19; 18:18). This teaching authority did not die with Peter and the apostles, but was transferred to future bishops through the laying on of hands (e.g., Acts 1:20; 6:6; 13:3; 8:18; 9:17; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim. 1:6).

By virtue of this divinely-appointed authority, the Catholic Church determined the canon of Scripture (what books belong in the Bible) at the end of the fourth century. We therefore believe in the Scriptures by the authority of the Catholic Church. After all, nothing in Scripture tells us what Scriptures are inspired, what books belong in the Bible, or that Scripture is the final authority on questions concerning the Christian faith. Instead, the Bible says that the Church, not the Scriptures, is the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15) and the final arbiter on questions of the Christian faith (Matt. 18:17). It is through the teaching authority and Apostolic Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6; 1 Cor. 11:2) of this Church, who is guided by the Holy Spirit (John 14:16,26; 16:13), that we know of the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, and the manifold wisdom of God. (cf. Ephesians 3:10).

But what are we, the Church, doing today?

"We", the Catholic Church, are holding a Synod on the Holy Eucharist. Present, but not voting, at this Synod, are representatives from all the major religious groups - Judaism, Islam, Orthodoxy and the various protestant denominations. We're continuing to proclaim the word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit.

[conservonator]

The bowls are filled with the prayers of the saints. Why would Christ give them prayers to re-present to Him? You're not making sense.

[Tao Yin]

There has never a man alive who understood Revelation, even the man who had it. To try and interpret Revelation according to common sense, and claim absolute certantude, is pathetic.

In the Bible, only God promisses to hear our prayers.

In the Bible, all prayers are directed towards God.

You have been nailed!

[Tao Yin]

Are you getting confused about what a saint is? I realize that the Catholic Church has changed the meaning of words, but when Revelation says the prayers of the saints, it means the prayers of christians. You see, christian and saint mean the same thing in the Bible. In fact, I'm a saint and you're a saint.

The only examples of saints praying in the Bible are from earthly christians to God. So if these prayers of the saints where to saints in heaven, it would need a qualification. If these prayers of the saints were from saints in heaven, they again would need a qualification.

[conservonator]

There has never a man alive who understood Revelation, even the man who had it. To try and interpret Revelation according to common sense, and claim absolute certantude, is pathetic.

So Scripture isn't self revealing? You mean we need a guide to help us understand what Scripture is truly revealing? Maybe that's one of the reasons Christ established a Church first...

[conservonator]

...but when Revelation says the prayers of the saints, it means the prayers of christians.

Right! So in that verse form Revelation, you see those in heaven offering the prayers of we here on earth, in other words, they are interceding on our behalf. Do you see?

[mike182d]

I set the Bible apart from the writings of uninspired men. If I could find writings that supported my views, what use would it be? Fallible men are still fallible, even when they agree with me.

Where in the Bible does it say that the book of Matthew is the inspired word of God? How is this different than the Gospel of Thomas saying that it is the inspired word of God? Are you saying the Word of God is inspired becaues you believe its inspired? Its good to know that you alone possess such authority.

You talk about the use of the word church as a physical institution and bureaucracy. It is not. In the Bible, the word church has two meanings. First, the individual congregations. Second, the Body of Christ, all those who are saved.

What do you call the Council of Jerusalem in the book of Acts? It was not a gathering of all the individual congregations in the whole of the Empire, but rather the leaders of the "Church" meeting to discuss a matter concerning the whole of the Christian faith. You understanding of "church" is entirely inconsistent with how Christianity first began as portrayed in the book of Acts.

The Catholic Church is not a church at all

I'm glad you disagree with every historian for the past 2000 years.

I do admit that I do not understand the keys given to Peter. I'm OK with that. The keys are never mentioned again. If the keys are an integral part of the Gospel, why are they only mentioned in one of the Gospels? Why are the keys never mentioned as part of the Good News?

The "why" is irrelevant. God said it, so it must have some worth. The fact that you're willing to completely disregard something that the Son of God said simply because you think its not important speaks volumes about your Christian faith. Could you please point out the passage in Scripture where Christ gives Tao Yin the sole authority to decide what is important and what isn't?

The power to bind and loose is given to all the apostles.

Correct. The Pope is a bishop and successor to an Apostle as all the other bishops. He is merely a leader amongst equals.

The keys do not affect how others treat Peter.

You need to really sit down and read the book of Acts. The whole first half of the book is the story of Peter and his leadership in the Church. When Peter decides to appoint another Apostle to fill Judas' spot, where does he get his authority? Jesus didn't tell him to do it, and the Bible certainly didn't - the first letter wouldn't be written until 30 years later. When Paul is faced with the question of making Gentiles Jews before becoming Christian, does he ask Jesus? Does he appeal to Scripture? No, he heads to Jerusalem to ask Peter. It is historical fact that Peter had pride of place among the other Apostles and this was believed for the first 1500 years of Christianity. You have no evidence to the contrary. You have no writings supporting your position that the early Church thought Peter wasn't special or that the "Church" wasn't an authoritative institution.

Galatians 2:11 [ Paul Opposes Peter ] When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.

Of course. There were bishops that opposed Pope John Paul II's position on the Iraqi War. What's your point? Infallibility isn't the same as impeccability.

Just because I do not understand the keys, does not mean I must to agree with someone who wrote about the keys in 220, so his organization could have worldly power.

And this is somehow better than you having power? Removing the Church as an institution does not dissipate "power," it merely transfers the power the institution had and gives it to an individual. It is very humanist in nature. No one is an authority over you because you are your own authority. No one can tell you what Scripture means because you are your own authority over Scripture. That is the foundation of the matter. Belief in "Bible-alone" never eliminated some oppressive "power," it gave it to the people who wanted it instead of the Church.

Every single point that I have made is not my own personal opinion. I am pulling from 2000 years of Christian beliefs. Where are you getting your "proof" from?

As Catholics, our authority is the Apostles and they were clearly given such authority by Jesus Christ Himself.

With Protestants, their authority is themselves and there is no Scriptural support of this position.

[mike182d]

In the Bible, there is no promise that anyone, except for God, can hear our prayers. Period. No doubt about it. End of discussion.

I'm sorry, you've lost me here. I think you're confused about what prayer to the Saints actually entails.

Let me ask you this: when Jesus was ministering to people and they would ask him questions, were they "praying" to Jesus? No, of course not. I don't think you'll find any sane person that will claim that all conversation had with Jesus while he was alive on earth was "prayer." Jesus was right there in their midst and so communication with him was more earthly and direct. But, Jesus died, rose from the dead, and now sits at the right hand of God the Father. So, when I talk to Jesus Christ, it is now considered "prayer." There is a clear difference between talking to someone on earth and talking to someone in heaven and the definition of communicating with a person such as Jesus Christ in heaven is: prayer.

Would you ask your mother to pray for you? Most people would respond "of course!" Yet, if your mother died, would you still try and "communicate" with her? In times of difficulty or missing her, would you not say, "mom, I really need your help right now. I hope you can hear me." People do this all the time, Catholic and Protestant alike.

Furthermore, Jesus Christ himself "prayed" to dead people. As you admitted, Moses died and was buried. And yet, at the transfiguration, we have Jesus talking with Moses. How can this be? How can Jesus talk to dead people? Why would he talk to dead people? That's necromancy!!! Right....?

Do you find prayer to one's guardian angel unacceptable? When David invokes the angels in heaven to praise the Lord, is that unacceptable?

Bottom line:
- asking people to pray for you is encouraged in the Bible.
- asking those in heaven to pray with you is in the Bible
- ergo, asking people who have entered into heaven to pray for us is acceptable to the Bible.

It really is quite simple, or would you like to again disagree with 2000 years of Christian belief in favor of your own personal view?

[mike182d]

In the Bible, all prayers are directed towards God.

So, what would you call David invoking the angels to praise God? Would that be prayer, or something else?