Replies

I have to disagree with your claim that the Catholic Church was handed the reins by the apostles. Catholic doctrine flies in the face of the detailed scriptures regarding the qualifications of a preacher/teacher. The bible never speaks of an organized priesthood.

In fact given what Christ had to say to the priesthood of the time, calling them snakes, one would logically assume that this type of organization of priests leads to corruption. Given the sexual assult of homosexual/predator priests on altar boys I can't see why the Catholic Church would feel it's so much better to have child molesters in charge of their flocks rather than those awful married fathers.

This is just one example of where the Catholic Church went off the tracks regarding their doctrine verses scripture. Don't get me started on the corruption and abuse of their followers through the centuries until the common man wrested the scriptures from their control.

I have to disagree with your claim that the Catholic Church was handed the reins by the apostles. Catholic doctrine flies in the face of the detailed scriptures regarding the qualifications of a preacher/teacher. The bible never speaks of an organized priesthood.

First, it is never alleged that the Apostles created the Catholic Church or "handed the reins" to a seperate entity. Rather, the Catholic Church was the Apostles - appointed by Christ Himself, and continued with their successive appointments.

I think it would do you well to read the book of Acts and pay close attention to how the Church functions. Who told Peter to appoint another Apostle to replace Judas? It certainly wasn't Jesus as He had long since ascended into heaven and Peter certainly wasn't appealing to the Bible. So, where does Peter get the authority to name another Apostle, whereas Christ had been the only one capable of doing so prior? Secondly, did not this new appointment - Matthias - come into possession of all the powers of an Apostle? The powers and the authority of the Apostles could be passed on to others as Acts clearly demonstrates and was passed on as the 2000 year history of the Church demonstrates. Think about it: the Apostles didn't die all at once. If someone claimed to be an appointed successor of an Apostle, and it was not "kosher" with the existing Apostles or the Christian community, don't you think they would have said something prior to the 16th Century? And yet, no one questioned Apostolic succession for 1500 years. What did Martin Luther know that the first 1500 years of Christians didn't?

The bible never speaks of an organized priesthood.

Of course the Bible speaks of a priesthood, its all over the Old Testament. In fact, for Paul to consider Christ a "High Priest," it would necessitate the existance of a priesthood. If there isn't a priesthood, what exactly is Christ the High Priest of? That's like saying there's a Speaker of the House without a House of Representatives. Doesn't make much sense. Once again, the first 1500 years of Christians didn't have a problem with it. What did Martin Luther know that they didn't? (Keep in mind the current "priesthood" is not the same as the Jewish "priesthood." It is not the Catholic priest that makes a sacrifice on behalf of himself or the people, but rather a man acting in persona Christi, or in the person of Christ with Christ working through Him, to make accessible to those present today the grace of His sole, eternal sacrifice 2000 years ago).

In fact given what Christ had to say to the priesthood of the time, calling them snakes, one would logically assume that this type of organization of priests leads to corruption.

Show me where Christ criticizes the office of the priesthood. He only challenges individual priests for being hypocritical and not living up to the holiness of their position. If you can show me where in the Bible Christ removes the priesthood, as an office, I'm all ears.

Given the sexual assult of homosexual/predator priests on altar boys I can't see why the Catholic Church would feel it's so much better to have child molesters in charge of their flocks rather than those awful married fathers.

This is what we typically call "ignorance." First of all, lack of sex has nothing to do with pedophilia - there is absolutely no corrolation. If so, why would Christ and St. Paul say that it is better to be celibate if it was inherently evil? Secondly, your judging the whole of a group of people by a deviant 3% (6% tops). This is no more justified than calling all blondes "dumb" or all black "criminals."

This is just one example of where the Catholic Church went off the tracks regarding their doctrine verses scripture.

Find one Bible verse that contradicts a Catholic dogma or doctrine. You will not find it. The best Protestants can say is that "its not explicitely in the Bible" but there is no Catholic dogma or doctrine that contradicts scripture.

However, there are plenty of Protestant beliefs that clearly contradict the written Word of God. At the very least, its a case of the pot calling the kettle "black."

I have to disagree with your claim that the Catholic Church was handed the reins by the apostles.

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.