After writing a grammatical exposition of the controversial passage in Matthew which Catholics claim shows Peter is their Pope, Claudius the Catholic said,
“Now that I have all that grammar out of the way we need to all sit and think about what this all means.”
Sure, now let’s look at your second statement after that one:
“We have the prophecy from Daniel that the Catholic Church fulfills”
So then rather than sticking with that passage you jump thousands of years back to Daniel, well if you can do that I can also refer to other Scriptures on whether or not the Catholic Church is the true Church or not. I’m guessing you’re talking about Daniel 2, being that this is the only speech I could find on the net from a Catholic claiming that D2 supported Catholicism,
“It refutes the Protestant and Mormon notion of a “Great Apostasy.” Believers in a Great Apostasy believe that at some point, either Catholicism replaced the True Church, or overran it. Yet Daniel 2’s prophesy says that during the days of the Roman Empire, Christ will set up a Kingdom, and it’ll never “be left to another people.” There’s no room for a New Church or New Kingdom in a post-Roman age (in either sense of “Roman,” there). No need to hypothesize about who the first pope was, or when the Church was formed. Daniel 2 lays the foundation you need, and the New Testament clears up the gray areas.”
The problem with this part of the Catholic’s rant are obvious:
1) The Bible says there will be an apostasy in the New Testament, more than once. So this Catholic like so many others just doesn’t know, forgets or deliberately avoids certain Scripture.
2) He’s forgetting yet another Scripture in which Jesus said that his kingdom should not be awaited, but that it was already here. OBVIOUSLY, there was no Catholic Church at that time, and if Peter was the first pope, he sure wasn’t at that time. So out goes that massive stretch.
3) The Roman Catholic church is not a kingdom. And Revelation does say the Catholic church whores about with them (“seven mountains”, don’t forget).
4) That line about the church not being left to another people as evidence is utterly stupid and infantile and nonsensical: A protestant could easily make that claim as evidence, what does it prove? “Hi, Bible says my church won’t be left to another people, so you Catholics aren’t the true church.” WOW EXCELLENT PROOF! NOT. Really how stupid can you get Catholics? Why not say, “Bible says Jesus is the Christ, that’s means our Christ, so you’re not the real Christians.” Wow, awesome, proved sooo much. Might as well say, “Nanny nanny boo boo we are true not you.”
Yet, if I and other Christians don’t read Catholic arguments like that, we face replies like, “Nanny nanny boo boo I can’t hear you.” (referring to us). But no: we don’t have to endlessly read Catholic claims and defenses, once you read their some of their common replies and claims as to why they are the true Church, whether it has an official stamp of of approval from their Pope or not, and review their TRUE history, whether it has the official seal of approval from their Pope or not, and see the flaws in them, whether their Pope acknowledges them or not, that is enough ignore the Nanny Boo Booers who just want to torment you more for not following them.
What makes the other people claim so ultra stupid, is that it makes no point and the Catholic using it is implying that it’s true just because he says it is (based on his claim that Kingdom = Catholic Church). How is that better than the Mormon babble that he claims is false? Better than their “oh Jesus said he has ‘other sheep’ and ‘other sheep’ is the Indians, bcuz the Book of Mormon said so. Just trust your good heart we’re right, and pray too so you can trust more, and if you don’t trust, well then you must be wrong, because we can see the truth no matter what you say, and truth is our hearts tell us we’re right, and the Book of Mormon too.” Vain, stretched, contrived, absurd, circles.
Moving on, what about Revelation? Why do Catholics keep avoiding that Book? The Catholic Church is CLEARLY being referred to in Revelation, CLEARLY fulfills the prophecy of the whore that rides the beast and the reference to the seven mountains makes it almost plain. No other entity fits that prophecy, despite the repeated fallacy made by Catholics when they refer to Protestants as a single entity, even though they contract themselves by trumping up the divisions between them! You can’t have it both ways Arbitrary Church.
Concerning the grammar? As usual, we only need to refer to other passages of Scripture. Over and over God and Jesus are called the Rock of eternity, and Jesus the foundation. ALL the apostles are referred to as the foundation, not just Peter, and obviously God does not mean bedrock it’s on or whatever is holding the foundation together (obviously that would be God, not Peter or the apostles). And anyone who has studied Protestant arguments on this matter, if they aren’t a newbie, knows the argument that Peter does not nearly contribute as much as Paul did, and it would make more sense to call Paul the foundation of the church. Peter supplemented Paul, not the other way around. So then it’s not unreasonable just based on that fact that Jesus wasn’t calling Peter a cornerstone or secondary foundation and the apostles playing inferior roles. Another Protestant argument is that Jesus pointed to himself, which some Catholics think absurd or unrealistic. BUT IT ISN’T, because Jesus gave a riddle to the Pharisees in which it clearly states he was referring to himself, rather than what they thought he, to them, appeared to LITERALLY mean, and so Catholics are being arbitrary with how they are literally interpreting the “and on this rock” passage. Further, NOTHING in that verse says anything about Peter being a Pope, or that the Catholic Church is the true Church. Any idiot can proclaim, “Peter was our pope, here’s proof: other members of the Catholic Church agree” or “Oh these Christians said so” and NOT bring up the CHARACTER of those people they use as witnesses, something clearly not Biblical to do. You don’t just trust anyone, that is ARBITRARY, it’s “picking and choosing”. It’s evil. And Catholics hate to hear this:
“By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?”
Do I even need to start pointing out the severe corruption in your Church? Do I need to point out the hypocrisy of your church in venerating Mother Teresa, or electing one corrupt Pope after another? The abortion rates? The rapes? And that other evil you all know is a problem?
But the arbitrary Catholic defense to that is, “Everybody sins dupe de dupe.” Oh yes, you’re right, “no biggie”, “everyone does it,” “But Dad, Johnny Calvin also put his hands in the cookie jars, so look at him not us, and just keep letting us sin.” And you sure can’t speak of Protestants as a single entity, because as you yourselves say of us, “Oh you Protestants are evil terrible horrible, ur the evil doers!” Because as you yourselves say, “They are divided into so many Churches! They can’t all have the Holy Spirit!” Yes, you’re right, they can’t all, and you are included among the division, or did you forget the Protestants DIVIDED from you? Once again: Arbitrary Arguing. And so, answer your own question, judge for yourselves, if not all can have the Holy Spirit, then who does? Maybe instead of repeatedly looking in the mirror and make vain repetitions to convince yourselves that it’s you who have it, like narcissists, maybe examine the deeds of other churches, maybe consider the true Church doesn’t go by a single name, like a business corporation, some magic name that makes you saved, some magical club name, but that they can be KNOWN BY THEIR FRUITS, their deeds, not “A NAME.”
I’ve read Robert Sungenis’ argument on the “Petra/Petros” argument too, and found his argument nonsensical and contradictory. James White does too: http://vintage.aomin.org/Epitetaute.html
And one last thing, the Bible forbids logomachy (arguing over words), which is what you Catholics are doing when you strive over petra and petros, and put into question the trustworthiness of Scripture like Muslims and Mormons do, when you pretend there is another translation that justifies you. “Trust me,” said Joseph Smith, “Put you’re trust in me when I tell you that God chose me and that I speak his will and that these golden plates I translated and am hiding under this cloth really are under this cloth. And look at me, am I not beautiful, loving, and well spoken? And therefore I tell you the Bible has been corrupted and would support me if we had the originals and if those prophets weren’t so sinful and rebellious, unlike me. Trust my revision and divine interpretations of it, or else, you can’t be apart of the true church and you are going to Hell and you will never have the Spirit. Keep my covenants.” “Trust us,” said the Muslims, “Trust that Christianity is wrong because you’re Bible has been altered. It doesn’t preserve God’s word accurately, our Quran is superior, it’s better than the original. The original Bible would have supported what we say if there was a perfect copy. Those Jewish prophets couldn’t be trusted with the pen the Bible says. The real prophets were Muslims, Abraham wasn’t even Jewish.” And like them, you beg the world to believe in your invisible contradictory evidence too. You too are a cult, whose religion centers around mere men, and like Mormons, gods, gods you pretend to merely venerate. Like the Pharisees, the leaders of the Catholics withhold the knowledge of the keys to the kingdom of Heaven and give them false keys instead, your tradition, tradition that negates the word of God.
I’m chosen by grace, not by works, and the faith I have that saved me wasn’t of me, but of God. And remember: God’s will be done, on Earth, AS IT ALWAYS IS, in Heaven.