Theological Debate

Theological Debate By: Phil Friedl

What is Liberalism?, Pages 96-103: But our Catholic standpoint is absolute; there is but one truth, in which there is no room for opposition or contradiction. To deny that truth is unreasonable; it is to put falsehood on the level with truth. This is the folly and sin of Liberalism. To denounce this sin and folly is a duty and a virtue. With reason, therefore, does a great Catholic historian say to the enemies of Catholicity: "You make yourselves infamous by your actions, and I will endeavor to cover you with that infamy by my writings." In this same way the law of the Twelve Tables of the ancient Romans ordained to the virile generations of early Rome: Adversus hostem aeterna auctoritas esto, which may be rendered: "To the enemy no quarter."

1

Objection #1 Question Was Peter The First Pope? Answer The Roman Catholic church teaches the apostle Peter was the first pope. There is a verse in the bible which is used to support this error. Matthew 16:18 “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” It is very easy to find many documents on the Internet which will give many details to show that Peter was not the first Pope, in spite of the many articles which Roman Catholic Writers produce to show that Peter was the first pope. My purpose is simply to show that the above scripture cannot be used as biblical authority, that Christ built His church on Peter. First there is the matter of the grammar of the sentence. … It is a fundamental law in Greek grammar, without exception, that the Article, Pronoun, and Adjective must agree in gender with the Noun to which they refer. An example of this: Matthew 16:18 “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The pronoun “this” is Feminine, and thus agrees with petra, which is also feminine, and not with petros (Peter), which is Masculine. Strong’s no 4074 petrov Petros pet’-ros means stone. To state Peter =" a rock or a stone", only causes confusion and enables the lie that Christ built his church on Peter. We therefore do not have to rely solely on Strong’s concordance. Christ Himself defined what Simon Peter would actually be called Cephas. John then explained precisely what it meant, a stone. John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone. A stone you can pick up in your hand. In spite of what the commentaries say, I truly hope that we can all tell the difference between a rock and a stone. EG: This is a gigantic Rock Ayers Rock Australia - if the picture drops out just google for it. This means that Peter was not the rock on which the church would be built, according to the grammar of the sentence. Christ was the Rock, not the stone on which the Eternal would build his church. Additionally scripture is very clear and also defines the Rock as Christ.

I Answer That, “Only the Resurrection was mighty enough to induce the disciples to believe in the Church and the future of Christianity; as for us, we are certain that Christ rose from the dead, because we see the Church.” - St. Augustine Jesus Christ spoke in Aramaic. His words were later translated into the Greek and Latin versions. I use two separate quotes to prove it. By using the Aramaic language as the quote states further down: “The play on the word Kephas is possible only in Aramaic.” Catholic Apologetics, Primacy of St. Peter, Pages 103-105: “As an Apostolic Church, built upon the foundation of the Twelve Apostles, Jesus Christ being Himself the chief corner stone, the Church of Christ first appears in history (Eph. 2,20). - The mark of apostolicity, of historical and real connection with the Twelve, belongs so essentially to it that it cannot be conceived without it. Even the number twelve was of fundamental importance. The Twelve represent the 2

new Israel which was to supersede the old Israel that had reject the Son of Man. They were conscious of the real significance of their number, and immediately after the Ascension of Jesus it was their first care to fill up the vacancy left in their company by the suicide of Judas. On the occasion of this election one of the Twelve takes a leading part. It is Simon, the son of Jonas, surnamed Peter. It is he who suggests and conducts the election of Matthias. On the day of Pentecost it is again Simon Peter who speaks in the name of all the Apostles to the assembled multitude. He is also their spokesman before the High Priest and the Sanhedrin. He works astounding miracles. By baptizing the pagan centurion Cornelius he decides the all important question whether pagans should be received into the Christian Church without circumcision. At the Council of Jerusalem he speaks first- the position of honor in all ancient assemblies- and calms the doubts of his more Judaizing colleague St. James. Not only in Jerusalem, but also in the vast mission field where St. Paul exercised his apostolate with such astonishing success, the authority of St. Peter is paramount. St. Paul says that with James and John he was one of the “pillars of the Church.” St. Paul's first visits to Jerusalem after his conversion was made for the purpose “of becoming personally acquainted with Peter.” He remained with him fifteen days (Gal. 1:18). He evidently felt the need of assuring himself that he was of one mind with Peter in his teaching. From the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of St. Paul it is clear beyond the possibility of denial that the guidance of the primitive Church devolved upon the Apostles, and that Peter was the head, the “prince” of the Apostles. St. Matthew records an event which gives a satisfactory answer to our question. It was in the neighborhood of Caesarea-Philippi at the foot of Mount Hermon, in full view of the mighty cliffs from which the waters of the Jordan issue, that Jesus asked His disciples: “whom do men say that the Son of Man is? But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and other Jeremias, or one of the prophets, Jesus Saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. “And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath no revealed it to thee, but My Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee. Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” (Matt. 16:13-20) Under a triple metaphor the primacy over the Church is promised to Peter: (a) He is the rock foundation that guarantees permanence of the Christian body; (b) he is the master of the Household of God; the keys symbolize the plenitude of his power over souls; (c) he receives the power to impose obligations on the members of the Church and to relieve them of them, and the exercise of this power is ratified in advance by God. The power of “binding and loosing” was afterwards conferred on all the Apostles collectively (John 20: 22-23); but to none of them except Peter did Christ say that he was the rock on which His Church was built, and the power of the keys was given to Peter individually and in a special manner. 3

If we look at the diction of the great promise of Christ, says Dr. Carl Adam, it is immediately evident that the words were originally spoken in Aramaic. The play on the word Kephas is possible only in Aramaic. The expressions Simon Bar-Jona, Gates of Hell, Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, Binding and Loosing, the contrast between Heaven and Earth, are all purely Semitic imagery. There can be no question of a Greek or Roman falsification. But are the verses genuine? Do they belong to the original Gospel of Matthew? Or are they a later interpolation? The Protestant theologian Bolliger answers: “The verses fit the context in which they stand as perfectly as a limb fits the body to which it belongs. They bear about the inimitable perfume of an historically great moment. In form, too, they are such as the great ones of the earth, and they only in the greatest hours of their life, can achieve. An interpolator is simply incapable of such an effect.” The words of Christ concerning Peter (the Rock-man) were well known both to the Jewish Christians of Palestine and to the converts from paganism long before St. Matthew wrote his Gospel. For both Mark (3:16) and John (1:42) relate that Peter's original name was Simon and that Jesus Himself gave him the name Kephas (Peter, Rock). This name become his proper name. St. Paul calls him Kephas and Peter, while the Acts of the Apostles always speaks of him as Peter. Under this name he was known in Jerusalem and Antioch, in Galatia, in Corinth, and in Rome. This fact is all the more remarkable because at the time of Christ neither Kephas nor Peter was a proper name. After the Last Supper Christ again promised the primacy to Peter.- “And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not, and thou being once converted confirm thy brethren” (Luke 22:31-32). Christ's prayer- the prayer of God- was necessarily effective; by it Peter was permanently confirmed in the faith which never failed him, though his moral courage did. Christ prayed for all His Apostles (John 17:9); but he prayed in an especial manner for Peter, upon whom the duty devolved of “strengthening his brethren.” It is the only record we have of Our Lord offering prayer for an individual. This fact alone helps us to define Peter's relation to his fellow Apostles. The primacy which Christ had promised so solemnly to Peter at CaesareaPhilippi was just as solemnly conferred on him after the Resurrection at the Sea of Galiee. - Three times the risen Lord asked Peter: “Lovest thou Me?” And after Peter's threefold assurance: “Lord, Thou knowest that I love Thee.” The Good Shepherd makes Peter shepherd in succession to Himself. “Feed My lambs, feed My sheep” (John 21:15-17). There can be no doubt as to the meaning of Christ's words. In the language of the Old Testament (Cf. Ezech. 37, 22-25) as well as in the Greek language kings and rulers are called shepherds of the people. To Peter is given the office of leader and ruler of Christ's people. He is not the primus inter pares- “the first among his peers,” as the Anglicans and Episcopalians would have us believe, but he is the Shepherd, their guide and leader, their Supreme Head.

4

Radio Replies Volume One, Pages 83-84: Q. 361 Christ said, “Upon this rock,” meaning Himself not Peter. “That is erroneous. In Jn. I., 42, we find Christ saying to Peter, “Thou art Simon...thou shalt be called Cephas, Which is interpreted Peter.” Christ had a special purpose in thus changing his name to Cephas or rock, a purpose manifested later on as rerecorded by Matt. XVI., 18, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.” Let us put it this way. Supposing that your name were Brown, and I said to you, “They call you Brown, but I am going to call you Stone. And Upon this stone I shall build up a special society I have in mind to establish,” would you believe that I was alluding to you, or to myself? Now Peter's name was Simon, and Christ changed it to Peter, or in the original Aramaic language, Kepha, which was the word for rick or stone, and which was never used as a proper name in that language. Thus He said, “Thou art Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my Church.” In modern English it would sound thus, “Thou art Mr. Stone, and upon this stone I will build my Church.” The word could not possibly refer to Christ in this text.” Q. 362 But in the Greek text the word for Peter is Petros, and for stone, petra. They are not the same. “There is no value in pointing out the difference of form in this word according to the Latin or Greek languages, in which they are accommodated to the masculine for Peter as a man, and to the feminine for stone. Our Lord spoke in Aramaic, in which the form is the same in both cases, simply Kepha.”

Conclusion 1. That there was no misinterpretation with the word Kepha. 2. Jesus Christ referred to St. Peter not to Himself. 3. Therefore St. Peter was the successor of Jesus Christ Himself, making St. Peter the first Bishop of Rome.

Objection #2 Why chain yourself to the ridiculous traditions of a false church?

I Answer That, We proved from the first objection that it is not a false Church, that is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, whom is currently headed by Pope Michael. Here is the importance and necessity of Tradition. Chief Truths Of The Faith, Sources of Faith Tradition, Pages 50-54: What Traditions Means. - Our Lord did not command His Apostles to write, but to teach. “Going, therefore, teach ye all nations...to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19). The Apostles told their disciples orally 5

what their Divine Master had communicated to them “The things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses,” St. Paul writes to Timothy, “the same commend” (i.e. tell) to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach to others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). Most of the truths which the Apostles preached at the command of Christ were afterwards written down by the Apostles themselves or by some of their disciples. But many important truths continued to be handed down by word of mouth. In fact, in the whole New Testament we cannot find any sign of a purpose to put on pater all that Christ revealed. St. John, the last of the Apostles to write, says expressly that he has recounted only a part of what Christ had done: “Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of His disciples, which are not written in this book” (20, 30). And St. Paul writes to the Thessalonians: “Brethren, hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:14). It is these truths, precepts, and counsels, revealed by God, but not found in the Written Word of God, that we call Tradition. Scripture and Tradition of Equal Value. Since the truths contained in Scripture and those handed down by Tradition both come from God, Scripture and Tradition are of equal value as sources of faith. Both deserve the same reverence and respect. Each alone is sufficient to establish a truth of our holy faith. The contents of Scripture and Tradition are not distinctly from each other or alien to each other. But Tradition can: A) Contain a revealed truth not found in Scripture, or B) Explain more clearly and definitely a doctrine less clearly expressed in Scripture, e.g., the Immaculate Conception. Necessity of Tradition. - The Bible nowhere tells us how many inspired books there are. If we did not know this for certain from Tradition, we should not even have a Bible. When Protestants appeal to Scripture against the Catholic Church, “they forget that it is from this very Church, and on her authority, that Scripture is received.” If we consulted the Bible only, we should still have to keep holy the Sabbath Day, that is, Saturday, with the Jews, instead of Sunday; we should have to abstain from eating things strangled and from blood (Acts 15, 20); we should let little children die without Baptism, because, according to the mere words of the Bible text (Matt. 28, 19), Christ gave the command first to teach, and then to baptize; we should not know that any man, or woman, or child that has attained the age of reason can validly baptize; we should not know the exact rite of validly administering each particular sacrament. The Bible does not, in doubtful passages, decide upon the true meaning of its words; this Tradition does for us. All sects appeal to the Bible to prove their contradictory doctrines, and each one of them pretends to have hit upon its true meaning. This we see that Tradition is necessary, and that the Christian must believe all that God has revealed and the Church proposes to his belief, whether it be contained in Holy Scripture or in Tradition. The Church, the Interpreter of Tradition. Just as the Church is the only infallible interpreter of the Sacred Scriptures, so from her alone can we learn the true meaning of Tradition. She alone has received from God the authority and the guidance necessary to interpret infallibly all revelation. 6

Objection #3 Your Catholic faith is derived from Babylonian Paganism.

I Answer That, It is evident that from the first two objections that the Catholic Faith was not derive from Babylonian Paganism but from God Himself, who came as God-Man, Jesus Christ. I am going to use a following outline. College Apologetics, Page 2: Proofs for the existence for God Proofs for the existence of Soul → The Relationship between God and man engenders in man the obligation to practice religion. → Religion can be either: Natural or Supernatural → If supernatural revelation is a fact then man cannot reject it in favor tenets of natural religion → Man must inquire into religions which claim to be agencies that impart to man the doctrine of supernatural revelation. → Christianity claims to be one of these religions → The Gospels are said to be documents which furnish some of the credentials of Christianity → Apart from Inspiration the Gospels can be pronounced trustworthy when inquiry is made into their integrity, authorship, historically. → The theme of the Gospels is Jesus Christ → Christ appealed to His miracles and prophecies as furnishing authority for His mission and teaching. → Christ miracles and prophecies do establish the truthfulness of His teaching for it can be proved to have God as their origin. → It follows that miracles and prophecies prove that Christ was what He claimed to be, namely God. → Since Christ is divine He has a good reason for all that He does. →

7

One of Christ's reasons for coming to earth was to teach all men of all ages those things which they must: 1. Do to be saved. 2. Believe to be saved. → Christ did not intend to remain on earth to do this teaching. → So that His doctrines would be transmitted to all men Christ founded a teaching agency called His Church → To prevent anyone from making an error in finding the True Church, Christ impressed on it four marks of identification → Christ intended his Church to be: 1. One in doctrine and government 2. Holy in founder, doctrine and members 3. Universal in time and place 4. Traceable to the person of Peter as its first ruler. → The Church which has these four marks and whose name corresponds to them is: 1. One 2. Holy 3. Catholic 4. Apostolic Church → Since the Church was founded by Christ and endowed with His authority to teach, it follows that under certain conditions it is infallible when teaching and explain matters pertain to: 1. Faith or what man must believe to be saved. 2. Morals or what man must do to be saved. → The Church using her infallible teaching authority has said that the fonts of Divine revelation to men are: 1. Sacred Scripture or the Written Word of God 2. Sacred Tradition or the Unwritten Word of God → [We conclude with an] Act of Faith

Objection #4 I love the King James Bible for it is full of God's wonderful truth.

I Answer That, Here are some problems with your beliefs, that is the Protestant battle cry of “Scripture Alone”. “The Bible does not, in doubtful passages, decide upon the true meaning of its words; this Tradition does for us. All sects appeal to the Bible to prove their contradictory 8

doctrines, and each one of them pretends to have hit upon its true meaning.” Problem 1: What happened in history before the official King James Bible? There was not always a official King James Bible in existence. Without your King James Bible there is no moral direction or instruction of “Christians.” (I.E. No Ten Commandments etc.) Problem 2: How do you know what to have in the King James Bible without any kind of Tradition? It does not say in the Bible what belongs in it or what belongs out of it. Problem 3: How is the King James Version inspired by God and not the devil, since it does not belong to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church? Problem 4: On who's human authority, that is from the Apostles themselves, do I know that it is the correct translation (that is the King James Version)? Problem 5: If two Protestants had contradictory interpretations on the same few sentences in the King James Bible who would be right? Who would settle the dispute? What if they agree on the erroneous meaning and not the truthful meaning of a passage?

Final Conclusion, It is evident that Jesus Christ set up only one Church, that is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, whom is currently headed by Pope Michael. Catholic Apologetics, Outside The Church There Is No Salvation, Pages 123-124: The early teachers of Christ's doctrines always taught that salvation was to be found only in the one Church of Christ, and they based their teaching on the words of Christ Himself: “If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican,” i.e, as no longer a member of Christ's Body, as outlawed from His society. St. Cyprian, the martyr bishop of Carthage, is the author of the famous phrase which so aptly and succinctly expresses the Church's claim to be the only institution on earth in which salvation is found: “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus – outside the Church there is no salvation” (Ep. 73,21). The opening words of the Athanasian Creed are a paraphrase of these words of St. Cyprian: “Whosoever desires to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith; which faith, except every one do keep entire and inviolate, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.” The same truth is expressed in the Lateran Creed and in the profession of faith published by the Council of Florence.

9

Works Cited Chief Truths Of The Faith: Creation, Original Sin, Christ, Faith, Grace, Eternal Life, Etc. A Course In Religion For Catholic High Schools and Academics Book I Written by Fr. John Laux, M.A. NIHIL OBSTAT: J.M. Lehlen Censor Librorum IMPRIMATUR: + Francis W. Howard Bishop of Covington, Kentucky March 25, 1932 College Apologetics: Proof of the Truth of the Catholic Faith By: Father Anthony F. Alexander (Formerly Department of Theology John Carrol University) NIHIL Obstat: Very Rev. Edward L. Hughes, O.P. Censor Librorum Imprimatur: Samuel Cardinal Stritch, D.D. Archbishop of Chicago October 13, 1953. Catholic Apologetics (God, Christianity and the Church) A Course In Religion For Catholic High Schools and Academics Book IV By: Fr. John Laux, M.A. NIHIL OBSTAT: Arthur J. Scanlan, S.T.D. Censor Librorum IMPRIMATUR: +Patrick Cardinal Hayes Archbishop of New York August 27, 1928 Radio Replies First Volume By: The Rev. Dr. Leslie Rumble, M.S.C. Rev. Charles Mortimer Carty IMPRIMATUR: John Gregory Morray Archbishop of St. Paul, Minnesota February 11, 1938 Copyright © 1938 By Radio Replies Press Society What is Liberalism? Dr. Don felix Sarda Y Calvany Translated and Adapted For American Readership by Conde B. Fallen, Ph.D., LL.D. Nihil Obstat: F. G. Holweck Censor Librorum St. Louis, June 26th, 1899 Imprimatur: John J. Jain Archbishop of St. Louis St. Louis, Missouri June 30, 1899 Copyright © 1899 By B. Herder Book Co.

10