On Whom Is The Church Founded?

[Ayodhya Nath Bhat]

On Whom Is The Church Founded?

The Apostle Peter himself explained in the Bible on whom the church was founded. He said that Jesus was the cornerstone: This Jesus is the stone rejected by you the builders which has become the cornerstone. There is no salvation in anyone else, for there is no other name in the whole world given to men by which we are to be saved (Acts 4:11-12).

To have a Biblical basis for the papacy, the Roman Catholic church neglects the numerous passages such as the one above which clearly teach that Christ is the head and foundation of the church, and quotes a short part of a passage from the Gospel of Matthew. They neglect to realize that even if the church was founded on Peter, there is nothing in this passage to infer that his status was passed on to the popes. I quote that passage here, with a few verses which precede it, and will add to our understanding.

They replied, "some say John the Baptizer, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." "And you, who do you say that I am?"

"You are the Messiah," Simon Peter answered, "the Son of the living God!"

Jesus replied, "Blest are you, Simon son of Jonah! No mere man has revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. I for my part declare to you, you are "Rock," and on this rock I will build my church, and the jaws of death shall not prevail against it (Matthew 16:14-18). In Greek, the original language of the New Testament, Christ calls Peter "Rock" (masculine gender) then says "on this rock" (feminine gender) I will build my church. What is the rock on which the church is built? The usual Catholic interpretation is Peter, but the difference in gender makes this questionable. Then, just five verses ahead, Jesus reproves Peter with such severity that He calls him Satan. In the context itself then, it is equally possible that the "rock" upon which the church is founded is found in the statement that Peter made, You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.

If we will let the passages in other parts of the Bible that refer to the same subject help us decide who it is that the church is founded upon, we find that it is Christ. No one can lay a foundation other than the one that has been laid, namely Jesus Christ (1·Corinthians 3:11).

Peter certainly should have understood whether the church was founded on himself or on Christ, and he wrote that it was on Jesus Christ: For Scripture has it: "See, I am laying a cornerstone in Zion, an approved stone, and precious. He who puts his faith in it shall not be shaken." The stone is of value for you who have faith. For those without faith, it is rather, "A stone which the builders rejected that became a cornerstone." It is likewise "an obstacle and stumbling stone." Those who stumble and fall are the disbelievers in God's word; it belongs to their destiny to do so (1 Peter 2:6-8). Peter understood Christ to be the cornerstone, the foundation of the church, and was obviously referring to Him in this passage.

Christ Himself said, Are you not familiar with this passage of Scripture: The stone rejected by the builders has become the keystone of the structure (Mark 12:10). The Jews understood that in saying this, Jesus was claiming to be their Messiah, and since they did not want Him to be their head they immediately tried to kill Him, stumbling on the stone, as the Scriptures had predicted. Later they succeeded, but He rose from the dead and became the stone upon which the church was founded. Will you accept Christ as the foundation and director of your life?

Returning then, to Matthew 16:14-18, with this background from the Scriptures, it seems clear that The rock to which Jesus referred was not Peter himself, but his confession: You are the messiah, the Son of the living God.

Even if this were not true, and Peter were the rock upon which the church was founded, there is still no Biblical reason to think that Peter's authority was passed on to others, and that the popes are his successors. Neither is there reason to believe that this idea was accepted by the early church. In fact the idea of a "pope" developed a little bit at a time and it was only in 1870 that the infallibility of the pope became a dogma. Even then there was a strong opposition to the idea from within the Roman Catholic church itself. There is just no real foundation to the idea that one man, other than Jesus Christ Himself, has the authority over us that the Pope claims to have, although there are good reasons why he may want us to believe it.

It is also rather confusing that the Pope ties his claim to authority, infallibility, and the right to have others bow down to him, to his being the successor to Peter. Peter certainly never claimed these things. Just the opposite! When one tried to bow before him he said, Get up! I am only a man myself (Acts 10:26).

In addition, Paul found it necessary to rebuke Peter very severely, not because he was infallible, but because he was wrong. He wrote, When Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch I directly withstood him, because he was clearly in the wrong (Gal. 2:11). Nor was this the first big mistake that Peter made. We all remember how Peter denied Christ three times at the very moment of our Lord's trial and condemnation. I don't want to take away anything from this great apostle, but it is not logical to claim that the pope's infallibility was handed down to him from a man who made mistakes and his authority over the church came from a man who refused to let people bow down to him.

Since the true church is founded on Jesus Christ, we should find a church that does not preach another salvation based on works and sacraments, but one which has as its base the Holy Bible, and the one name in the whole world given to men by which we are to be saved. Since virtually everything that can be known about Christ is found in the Bible, don't go to a church which has some other authority, whether it be the pope, the Book of Mormon, the Watch Tower, or even its own pastor's alleged communications with God. If you can be comfortable in a church without taking your Bible, there is probably something wrong.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Melody]

Prologue: Melody, being in very good mood today, is in High Spirits to do some Spiritual surgery. She reaches for her surgical gloves (google search bar, CCC & of course her handy Bible)...

"Let's begin the dissection "

The Apostle Peter himself explained in the Bible on whom the church was founded. He said that Jesus was the cornerstone

What the apostle Peter said was "This Jesus is the stone rejected by you the builders which has become the cornerstone."

Now let's ask ourselves a question - Is the Cornerstone the entire foundation?

No! Rather it is the Main & Integral Part of the foundation - but the foundation has to have more than just the cornerstone! Jesus Himself knew that, which is why He handed over to Peter & the rest of His apostles the ministry He started.

The Catholic Church does not "neglect the numerous passages such as the one above which clearly teach that Christ is the head and foundation of the church" as you stated.

In fact the Catholic Church very much agrees that Jesus is the head of the Church. Just one of many CCC quotes on Jesus being head of the Church given below:

792 Christ "is the head of the body, the Church." He is the principle of creation and redemption. Raised to the Father's glory, "in everything he [is] preeminent," especially in the Church, through whom he extends his reign over all things.

What the Catholic Church does teach however is that while Jesus is the Head of the Church & the Corner-stone of the church, the foundation is built on the Apostle and the prophets.

756 "Often, too, the Church is called the building of God. The Lord compared himself to the stone which the builders rejected, but which was made into the corner-stone. On this foundation the Church is built by the apostles and from it the Church receives solidity and unity.

Is this Biblical? Of Course! St. Paul very clearly states the exact same thing in his letter to the Ephesians, Chpt 2, vs 19-20

God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone

i.e. Foundation - built on apostles and prophets
     Cornerstone - Jesus Christ Himself
                                   
                                                          -X-X-X



Surgeon's Log:

Have this to say:

* Rubbed out false notion that Catholic Church doesn't hold Christ as head!
* Smoothened out rough patch bet. "foundation" & "cornerstone"
* Found it necessary to go clean up before completing procedure.

All for now, surgery is tedious, must be done in proper light. Will come back tomm to suture some more

Dr. Melody, MBBS**

**(Mostly Becoming Blinkin' Silly)

[Rev. Eric]

Hello Everyone,

I will just add some things to what Melody has already eloquently written.

As I pointed out in a post on another thread:

* Jesus founded a Church. (Mt 16:18)
* This Church is "the pillar and bulwark of truth" (1Tim 3:15)
* This Church contains Christ (Eph 1:22-23) as well as apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers, presbyters, bishops and deacons (Eph 4:11, 1Tim 3:1-2, 4:14, Phil 1:1).

In light of this, Christianity has always operated under a hierarchy.  There is no such thing as a hierarchy that does not contain a chain-of-command.  The very term means that there is a structure of varying degrees of authority.  If someone suggests otherwise, they need to explain the difference between, say, a pastor, presbyter and bishop.  All three offices are explained in scripture, and, in my opinion, it is impossible to truthfully and accurately describe the nature of these offices without acknowledging a hierarchy of authority.

A chain-of-command keeps going up, from the lowest member to the highest, until it stops at the absoulte head.  We all agree that the hierarchy of the Church stops with Christ, as he is the head of the Church.  But we also see that  this hierarchy contains people on earth (as displayed in the New Testament).  That means the chain-of-command stretches from people on earth into heaven.  Hence, there has to be somebody on earth who is the last link on the chain before the chain stretches into the heavenly realm.  This "somebody" is the Bishop of Rome (which is the official title of the pope).

In Greek, the original language of the New Testament, Christ calls Peter "Rock" (masculine gender) then says "on this rock" (feminine gender) I will build my church. What is the rock on which the church is built? The usual Catholic interpretation is Peter, but the difference in gender makes this questionable.

Ok, Ayodhya, you spoke about Greek, the original language that the New Testament was written in.  But what about the original language these verses were spoken in?  Jesus was not speaking in Greek when he said to Peter, "I for my part declare to you, you are "Rock," and on this rock I will build my church, and the jaws of death shall not prevail against it (Matthew 16:14-18)."  Jesus was speaking in Aramaic, as most people in the Middle East did at the time.  In Matthew 27:46, the original Aramaic was preserved, for Jesus says, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?"  That's Aramaic.  Incidently, most of the dialog in the upcoming The Passion of the Christ movie will be in Aramaic.

And just like English, Aramaic does not have gender assigned to nouns.  So the distinction between the masculine "RocK of Peter's name and the feminine "rock" which will be the foundation of the Church was not made when Jesus spoke these words.  Rather, he used the Aramaic word "kepha" for both.  "You are 'kepha' and on this 'kepha' I will build my Church."

But when these words were translated from the spoken Aramaic into written Greek, a problem arose, because Greek uses gender.  "Rock" in Greek is feminine, and was not used as a person's name.  Because Peter was now being called "Rock" as a name, the word had to be masculinized, because you cannot use a feminine word for a man's name.

So in Greek you have to distinguish between "Petros" (masculine name) and "petra" (feminine noun for rock).  These were the words used in the Greek version of Matthew.  Elsewhere in the New Testament we see Peter's name listed as "Cephas" which is a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic "Kepha" (which is rendered as "Kephas" in its Hellanistic Greek form).

In the context itself then, it is equally possible that the "rock" upon which the church is founded is found in the statement that Peter made, You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.

Keep in mind that Peter was not the only one to call Jesus "Messiah."  Other people called Him this, or "Christ" (which is simply the Greek version of the Hebrew name).  Martha said, "Yes, Lord, I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, He who is coming into the world."  (Jn 11:27).  This statement is just as strong as the one Peter made in Mt 16:16 ("You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God").  And yet, Jesus does not make a big deal out of Martha's statement the way He does with Peter.  Furthermore, before Peter made his statement at Caesarea Philippi (Mt. 16:16), several disciples (including presumbably  Peter) collectively told Jesus that He was "the Son of God" (Mt 14:33), and yet He did not make a big deal out of it.

But Jesus does make a big deal out of it at Caesarea Philippi because we are dealing with more than a simple statement of faith.  We are dealing with something special happening to Peter.  God was revealing Peter as a person who was especially empowered to discern the Messiah, because "flesh and blood" did not reveal it to Him, but God.

I will now quote from a Protestant bible commentary: "Matthew" by Douglass Hare (from the Interpretation Bible Commentary Series).

From pages 189-190:
Verses 17-19 "pronounce an individual blessing on Peter and assign him a unique role."

"The messianic confession is not due to idle human speculation (as in 12:23) but to divine disclosure"

Concerning the meaning of "Rock" as Simon's new nickname:
"Whatever the nickname meant in its original context, for Matthew it clearly marks Peter not just one stone among many, as in Eph 2:20 where the apostles and prophets constitute collectively the foundation of the church (cf. Rev 21:14), but as the church's unique and unrepeatable foundation."

"...the Reformers understood the rock to be Peter's faith, which was subsequently shared by all Christians.  Recent scholars, both Catholic and Protestant, are inclined to regard Peter himself as the rock but as functioning in this capacity in an unrepeatable way.  In the history of salvation, his role is to be seen as foundational in the emergence of the new messianic community.  We can compare the role attributed to Peter with that envisioned in Luke 22:32"

"Paul likewise attributes a salvation-historical primacy to Peter in 1Cor 15:5 when listing the resurrection witnesses, and it was Peter alone among the apostles whom Paul sought to interview after his conversion call (Gal 1:18).  Whether or not Matthew is justified in treating the Caesarea Philippi confession as the basis of Peter's primacy, that primacy is well attested.  It is not by accident that Peter appears first in all the New Testament lists of the apostles."

Once again, all the above passages in red are from a Protestant commentary.  Of course, I do not suggest that Hare believes in papal infallibility and such, but he clearly states that the "rock" was Peter and not Peter's statement of faith, and that Peter had primacy over the other apostles.

Then, just five verses ahead, Jesus reproves Peter with such severity that He calls him Satan.

Jesus calls Peter "Satan" because he was playing the role of the tempter.  The prospect of undergoing torture and death is not very thrilling, and here Peter was trying to talk Jesus out of it.  Of course, Peter's motivations stemmed from love and concern rather than evilness, but it expressed a temptation to avoid the cross all the same.

Even if this were not true, and Peter were the rock upon which the church was founded, there is still no Biblical reason to think that Peter's authority was passed on to others, and that the popes are his successors. Neither is there reason to believe that this idea was accepted by the early church.

The primacy of the pope is well testified in the Early Church.  I direct you to these websites for more info:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Authority_...Pope_Part_1.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Authority_...Pope_Part_2.asp

In fact the idea of a "pope" developed a little bit at a time

There was a Bishop of Rome ever since Peter established himself there.  He was succeeded by Linus (A.D. 67-76), Anacletus I (A.D. 77-88), Clement I (A.D. 88-97) and so on until we get to Pope John Paul II  That's a line of 264 Bishops of Rome, spanning some 2000 years, starting with Peter.  But yes, some aspects of the office of the pope "developed a little bit at a time", but so did everything else in Christianity.  The Doctrine of the Trinity, for example, developed a little bit at a time.  Christian teachings that emphasized faith over the practices of Jewish law developed a little bit at a time (as Acts and the Pauline epistles demonstrate).  The entire bible, of course, was developed a little bit at a time, over a looooooong period of time.  Just because something in Christianity develops over time does not mean that it is invalid.  Christianity is ultimately a mystery, and the Holy Spirit often has to slowly reveal things to us a little bit at a time.

and it was only in 1870 that the infallibility of the pope became a dogma.

The date in which something is defined as dogma does not mean that this is the date it was "invented" or "realized."  The idea of papal infallibility was around since the early church, but it was not until the 19th century that the Church felt the necessity to officially define it as a doctrine of the faith.  For more on the history of papal infallibilty, see:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

Even then there was a strong opposition to the idea from within the Roman Catholic church itself.

And there was strong opposition among Christians to many of the things St. Paul taught, as we see in Acts and the Pauline Epistles.  So obviously many Christians have the capablility to be in strong opposition to truthful doctrines.

When Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch I directly withstood him, because he was clearly in the wrong (Gal. 2:11).

Infallibility is concerned with the official teachings of faith and morals.  Paul did not criticize Peter for anything dealing with teachings on faith and morals.  He criticized Peter for openly eating with Gentile Christians while Jewish Christians weren't around, but when Jews showed up he stopped.

Nor was this the first big mistake that Peter made. We all remember how Peter denied Christ three times at the very moment of our Lord's trial and condemnation.

Once again, this had nothing to do with officially teaching about faith and morals.  Infallibility only concerns itself with not making mistakes regarding the official teachings of faith and morals.

Do you recognize First and Second Peter as the Word of God?  Was Peter acting under complete divine inspiration when he wrote those epistles?  Do you believe that everthing taught in First and Second Peter is free from error, by the guaranteed guidance of the Holy Spirit?  If you do then you have to admit that on at least these two occasions (the writings of these letters) Peter acted with infallibility.  So he was writing infallibly at these times, even though Paul criticized him for not eating with Gentiles when Jews were around, and he was writing infallibly even though he once denied Christ three times.

Since virtually everything that can be known about Christ is found in the Bible...

Uh...exactly how do you know this?

John admitted that Jesus said and did many things that were not recorded (Jn 21:25).  Jesus lived for approximately 33 years, and went around teaching and preaching for 3 of those years.  The gospels only cover a small fraction of that time span.  Do you really believe that Jesus never did or say anything of any value outside of what was recorded in the few pages of the gospels?  Are we to believe that every important utterance and teaching of Jesus was recorded in the gospels and he spend the vast remainder of the time of his three-year ministry watching sports and eating Doritos?

don't go to a church which has some other authority, whether it be the pope, the Book of Mormon, the Watch Tower, or even its own pastor's alleged communications with God.

I agree with what you said about the Book of Mormon and the Watch Tower, but be careful about questioning the authority of the pope.  I say this because of a point I made in the thread concerning infallibility and the Canon of Scripture.  If you believe that the books in the bible are inspired scripture and that, say, the Gospel of Mary, the Acts of Pilate, the Book of Enoch, are not, then you have to admit that on at least one occasion (in the 4th Century) a Catholic pope and his bishops acted infallibly.  It is the authority of the Catholic Church that tells you which books of scripture belong in the bible that you have.

If you can be comfortable in a church without taking your Bible, there is probably something wrong.

A Catholic does not need to specifically take a bible to Mass because the bible is contained in the missals found on the pews.  The first half of Mass involves the reading of various parts of the bible, Old and New Testament.  If a person goes to Mass every Sunday at a Catholic Church, he will hear nearly the entire bible read over a span of three years.  My point to all this is that a Catholic Mass is more bible-oriented than any Protestant church I have ever attended (aside, of course,  from those that copy the Catholic method).

Since the true church is founded on Jesus Christ, we should find a church that does not preach another salvation based on works and sacraments, but one which has as its base the Holy Bible, and the one name in the whole world given to men by which we are to be saved.

I have saved this quote for last, because I think that it is worth a separate thread (and therefore a separate discussion).  This should be a discussion about Sola Scriptura.  Therefore, Ayodhya, I invite you to go to that new thread on this apologetics board to elaborate further on your statement above.

God bless,
-Rev. Eric

[Seeker]

I have but a small (and feeble   ) addition to make to the previous eloquent writings.  

Matthew 16:14-19 is not the only place in Scripture where Peter is singled out by Christ or acts as a spokesman for the Apostles.

Luke 22:31-32

"Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat,
but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers."

John 21:15-19

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep. Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." He said this signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when he had said this, he said to him, "Follow me."

Acts 1:15-22

During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place). He said, "My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus. He was numbered among us and was allotted a share in this ministry. He bought a parcel of land with the wages of his iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his insides spilled out. This became known to everyone who lived in Jerusalem, so that the parcel of land was called in their language 'Akeldama,' that is, Field of Blood. For it is written in the Book of Psalms: 'Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.' And: 'May another take his office.'  Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection."

Acts 2:14-40

Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice, and proclaimed to them, "You who are Jews, indeed all of you staying in Jerusalem. Let this be known to you, and listen to my words. These people are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only nine o'clock in the morning. ... Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, "What are we to do, my brothers?" Peter (said) to them, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit. For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call." He testified with many other arguments, and was exhorting them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation."

That is all.  Thanks.

[Melody]

Nothing to add but my sincere thanks to the Rev. for taking the time to explain all he did!

Wow! I have never heard (the allegations or response to) the whole Rock feminine/masculine Greek/Aramaic thing.  It made this truly a fascinating thread to follow.

Thanks to both of you, Rev. & Ayodhya

Blessings,

Melody

[P.S: Dr. Melody adds - this is one of those operations where one surgeon starts & another finishes it off. But remembering the Wedding at Cana, one well might ask "Why did you save the best wine for last?!"   ]

[Ayodhya Nath Bhat]

Folks can you imagine life without Ayodhya's postings.

How bland and insipid this website would have been if Ayodhya did not stir the hornet's nest  at the drop of a hat.The postings have been bringing the best out of us all be it attack or defence.I notice with sadness that stalwarts like Seeker and Tina have gone into the shell.On behalf of my other siblings, I request you both to defend your fort and bring Glory to God.Thats what this community is all about.

God loves you

A N Bhat

[Rev. Eric]

Thank you, Melody, for your kind words, and congratualtions on all the recent awards that Glorify God has received!  You truly are the "best wine."  

I thought it would be good for me to make a final comment concerning the whole Petros/petra business.  Although this did not come up in the discussion, there are those who will make the following argument:

1) In Greek, petra means "large, massive stone"
and petros means "small stone or pebble."

2) Hence, Jesus made a distinction between Peter and the rock upon which the Church would be founded.  In other words, Peter is a "little rock", and therefore he cannot be the "big rock" upon which the Church is built.

This may sound like a good argument, but we have to keep in mind that there was not a single version of the Greek language in history.  It went through different versions and different variations.  The "big rock" and "little rock" usage in Greek is found in Attic Greek, but not in Koine Greek.  Koine is an entirely different dialect than Attic, and I think that Attic was pretty much phased out centuries before the birth of Christ.

New Testament Greek was written in Koine, in which there is no "big rock", "little rock" distinctions with petra/petros.  Petra and its masculine variation Petros both simply mean "rock."  There is a separate word in Koine for little rock, which is "lithos."

So if Jesus had, indeed, referred to Peter as a little rock, he would have called him "Evna" (the Aramaic word for "little rock/pebble") and it would have been translated in the Koine Greek of the gospel as "Lithos."

But we know that Jesus called him "Kepha" and not "Evna" because elsewhere the New Testament has preserved the original spoken Aramaic in the name "Cephas" (which, as I said in my other post, is the Hellanistic form of Kepha).  Plus, the evangelists translated this as "Petros" and not "Lithos."

Therefore, Jesus was not making any distinctions between little rocks and big rocks, and He was not making any distinctions between the Peter the Rock and the rock upon which He built His Church.

God bless,
-Rev. Eric

[Seeker]

Hi Ayodhya,

Wish I could add constructively to what Melody and the good Rev. Eric have already posted, but I can't (except for the few verses I posted earlier).  Their responses were very thorough and pretty much covers it.   I'll have to pass on this one and "spar" with you on another thread.

[Rev. Eric]

Ayodhya,

Concerning what you said above:

How bland and insipid this website would have been if Ayodhya did not stir the hornet's nest at the drop of a hat.The postings have been bringing the best out of us all be it attack or defence.I notice with sadness that stalwarts like Seeker and Tina have gone into the shell.On behalf of my other siblings, I request you both to defend your fort and bring Glory to God.Thats what this community is all about.

You describe the same spirit that I hope you will bring to the other topics I have introduced in the Apologetics section:  "Sola Scriptura" and "What Does it Mean to be Saved?"  In other words, while I and the other Catholics in the Glorify God Community have been very open to answering your questions, I hope that you will be open to answering some of mine.  After all, as you said, "That's what this community is all about."

God bless,
Rev. Eric

[Ayodhya Nath Bhat]

O Lord bless Rev Eric and save him from Satan and his demonic promptings.

A N Bhat

[Seeker]

Hello Ayodhya,

Why do you believe that Rev. Eric's responses are demonic promptings?  He is making valid points and asking valid questions.  I think it would be better to directly respond to the points he is making and show where they are wrong.  Most of your thread starters are based on half-truths about what Catholicism teaches.  Rev Eric is pointing out the truth of what Catholicism teaches.  You may interpret those beliefs differently, but let's at least discuss the real teachings of the Church and not what anti-Catholics would like Catholics to believe.  

Please Ayodhya, I beg you as a fellow Christian, search for the whole truth. In Scripture, Paul tells us to "test the spirits."  If you would test the sources of your thread starters, you would see that their sole purpose is to denigrate Catholicism, not present the truth so that Catholics can make their own informed decision.  They are not interested in refuting what the Church really teaches, but in refuting the Church by twisting what it teaches.

[Rev. Eric]

Greetings Ayodhya,

O Lord bless Rev Eric and save him from Satan and his demonic promptings.

I sincerely thank you for your prayers, as I certainly desire that the Lord save me from any evil influences that Satan may try to inflict upon me.

But the question remains as to whether or not anything I've posted in this forum originated with the devil.  Therefore....

1)  Kindly give me a definition of "demonic prompting" (in general terms), and

2)  Demonstrate for me where anything I said falls into that definition.

God bless,
-Rev. Eric

[DavidFilmer]

If Ayodhya plans to cut-and-paste the works of others, the least he could do is attribute it. Ayodhya plagerized this content from the book "Answers to my Catholic Friends," copyright 1996 by Thomas F. Heinze, which is posted (with permission and attrition) on Jack Chick's website (Jack Chick is a professional anti-Catholic):

http://www.russpickett.com/apolog/church.htm

[Melody]

Dear Rev Eric,

I don't believe I've formally apologized to you for the last comment Ayodhya made here still being on the boards. I did manage to get a whole bunch of them deleted, but Seeker had already replied to this one by the time I first saw it. Anyway, your response to it was very sensible (as usual!) so hopefully Ayodhya, if he comes back here, will re-think his position.

Blessings on Ayodhya, you & all the members of our family,

Melody

[Rev. Eric]

I don't believe I've formally apologized to you for the last comment Ayodhya made here still being on the boards. I did manage to get a whole bunch of them deleted, but Seeker had already replied to this one by the time I first saw it. Anyway, your response to it was very sensible (as usual!) so hopefully Ayodhya, if he comes back here, will re-think his position.

Melody,

I appreciate your apology but it is probably good that Ayodhya's statement has been preserved.  There may be other visitors to this website that feels they way he does concerning my responses.  If that is the case, I want everyone to know that I am willing to discuss whether or not the devil had anything to do with what I've said.

To All,

As David has discovered, it seems that Ayodhya is a regular visitor to Jack Chick's website, and Chick along with many of his followers believe that the Catholic Clergy are pretty much satanic priests pretending to be Christians.  But if I, being a Catholic deacon in training for the priesthood, am an agent of the devil, then a Christian empowered by the Holy Spirit, that is to say, the power of Truth and Victory, should be able to refute what I have said throughout this forum in defense of the Catholic Church.  If such a Christian cannot refute what I've said (or any of the other Catholics here for that matter) then, out of all honesty, he or she should consider that the Catholic position is a reflection of Divine Truth.

God bless,
-Rev. Eric