Today I was looking at a sketch of John Huss. It was a copy of a drawing by the studio of George Fester and Keith Essex. The title of the picture was John Huss--man of conviction--1416.

John Huss was burned at the stake because he refused to remain silent and renounce his opposition to the errors and corruption of the Roman Catholic Church of his day. Preaching the "positive gospel" never-condemn-anything teaching has never made a martyr.

In the beautiful song "Faith of our Fathers", stanza tow says:

Our fathers, chained in prisons dark Were still in heart and conscious free; How sweet would their children's fate, If they, like them, could die for Thee.

Someone once suggested that martyrs, nor faithful saints, are never made by those who do not raise "tongue nor pen" in opposition to the powers of darkness in their day.

Where are the martyrs of today?

Rev. 6:9, "And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held"

2 Tim. 3:12, "Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution."

Matt. 5:10-12, "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad; for great is your reward in heaven; for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you." This fits in with the incident where the two apostles were arrested, beaten, held captive. When they left their *arrestors* they went about rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His name.

Does it ever make you all wonder that if Christians today were living for and serving God as the early Christians did they would be greatly persecution? And if there persecution would it not tell the *men from the boys*? And would the kingdom spread all out of bounds?

Nelta p.s. Who do you think should be more persecuted more today?

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2000

Answers

It is historical malpractice to suggest, as your post does, that somehow persecution is good for the church. It never has been.

One of the main reasons, as in the persecution of the early church, is that the first ones to go were the leaders.

I've often thought that one of the reasons that paved the way for the apostasy, ultimately resulting in the Catholic church, was the "search and destroy" persecution of Domitian in 96 A.D. (the setting of Revelation), that destroyed the vast majority of strong leaders and left the church with a leadership vacuum.

Is it not interesting, then, that practices such as pouring, sprinking, and the monarchial bishop (a.k.a., "the" pastor) developed shortly after this?

Someone who actually thinks that persecution is good for the church is really naive....or a saddhist.

Yes, we take a lot of things for granted. And yes, our "freedom of religion" has in many cases led to "freedom FROM religion."

But I will be the first to recognize that we are blessed to live in a land where we can practice our faith according to our conscience without fear of retribution. It is my hope and prayer, that will never change.

-- Anonymous, February 26, 2000

John....

Right on!! Let's count the number of times Peter was wrong.

Well, first there was his unwillingness to preach to Cornelius, the first Gentile convert in Acts 10. He went, but scuffed his feet the whole way. It took a manifestation of the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles to convince Peter that it was for real.

But, obviously that didn't do it either, because he sucked up to the false teachers known as Judaisers and would not then eat with Gentiles. This is what Paul rebuked him for in front of the whole church in the book of Galatians.

I always thought that was kind of a nasty way to treat the first Pope....you know....rebuking him in front of everybody.

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2000

(Uh oh ... I feel another stern Staffolding coming ...)

Nelta, the church is persecuted all over the world! I think I read where 200,000 Christians died for their faith last year alone! The Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, India, Vietnam, China and Indonesia are just a few places where particularly violent persecution is going on right now. For more information on persecution around the world, I would encourage you to spend some time at Voice of the Martyrs http://www.persecution.com/ and The Persecuted Church http://www.persecutedchurch.or g/.

Christians are also becoming more active in this post-Christian society and it is reacting back by becoming increasingly hostile to Christianity. The persecution here is not usually open, but it exists. Lost jobs, children kicked out of school, limits put on churches, Christian-bashing, teen kids killed because they profess their faith ... honey, don't deceive yourself, its happening here already! And it is sure to get worse.

-- Anonymous, February 26, 2000

-- Danny Gabbard, Sr

"But I will be the first to recognize that we are blessed to live in a land where we can practice our faith according to our conscience without fear of retribution. It is my hope and prayer, that will never change."

And I think we can be thankful to God for this "appointed place."

(2 Sam 7:10 KJV) "Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime,"

-- Anonymous, February 26, 2000

I Tim. 2:1-4 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

We're told to pray in a way that we can have peace and tranquility. Seems rather foolish to desire to be persecuted. Many cults have a "persecution complex" because they feel it validates their false beliefs (read into that what you will).

Acts 9:29-31 And he was talking and arguing with the Hellenistic Jews; but they were attempting to put him to death. But when the brethren learned of it, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him away to Tarsus. So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria enjoyed peace, being built up; and going on in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it continued to increase.

Isn't that passage interesting? They had peace and were being built up. If we could quit being so silly about things all the time, we might find the Church in our day being built up as well - instead we concoct bizarre interpretations of Scripture and argue about them with no Scriptural support, e.g., no Eldership authority in the Churches and Prince Charles being heir to the Jewish throne. Come on!

Mark,

Mt 27:5 And he threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself. Lk 10:37 ...Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do the same."

The verses you keep pasting together make no sense historically, theologically, nor common sensically. You keep talking about IN CONTEXT but I have yet to see anything near what you claim IN CONTEXT. I don't even see it OUT OF CONTEXT.

The "stammering lips" of Is 28 was the Assyrian language spoken by those that God used to bring judgment upon Israel. There is no connection between Assyrian and English.

PEACE

-- Anonymous, February 26, 2000

However we give thanks for this place we live in wether we/you believe it was appointed us or not.

The pilgrims thoutht it rather a gift from God.

What a "Great Nation"!

-- Anonymous, February 26, 2000

The Mayflower Compact -------------------------------------------------------------------

1620

"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e&.

Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick...

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

A Great Heritage we have..."in the Presence of God".

However this thread was not for this purpose I was just commenting on the fact that we dwell free from the affliction of our enemies. And that I believe it was Gods doing and a fulfillment of His promise to His Christian People.

-- Anonymous, February 26, 2000

I've often thought that one of the reasons that paved the way for the apostasy, ultimately resulting in the Catholic church, was the "search and destroy" persecution of Domitian in 96 A.D. (the setting of Revelation), that destroyed the vast majority of strong leaders and left the church with a leadership vacuum.

Is it not interesting, then, that practices such as pouring, sprinking, and the monarchial bishop (a.k.a., "the" pastor) developed shortly after this?

Yeah, I guess Jesus didn't really do a very good job of establishing a church because it fell into apostasy within 100 years. Hmm. That seems to go against what he said in Mt. 16:18 the gates of hell will not prevail against this church. And John 14:16 the Holy Spirit will be with you always. It's unfortunate that we had to wait 1400 years before the true church of Jesus Christ was discovered again.

-- Anonymous, February 26, 2000

Beerman,

Jesus did not say the "gates of Hell." He said "the gates of Hades" meaning death. Death has NO power over the Church because Christ defeated death. I think you already know that and you're just stirring the pot. That's ok though.

Also John 14 is part of the Upper Room Discourse (Jn 13-16) and was apostolic. Those promises do not apply to us. We simply have the benifits of that promise to the apostles.

The more we view history the more we can see how anti-Christian the RC Church has always been. Hus was killed, Luther lived the last two thirds of his life with a death sentence on his head. Calvin too - he escaped only because he had a stronghold in Geneva. How about Wycliffe and Tyndale, the anabaptists, etc. ad nauseum, who didn't escape the RC church?

Not to mention the married popes, the illegitimate births and offspring of popes etc. RCism has as a doctrine that Priests, bishops & others are to remain unmarried, yet the Scriptures warn of those who teach such things (I Tim 4:1-3). One of the qualifications of a Bishop (episkopos) is that he be the husband of one wife (I Tim 3:2).

Yes, the Church has gone through apostacy. The RC church was PART of that apostacy. It didn't take 1400 years to "rediscover" the Truth. The Truth has been here all along. It's man's response to it that has changed and needs to change further.

-- Anonymous, February 26, 2000

BTW, it didn't take 100 years to fall into apostacy. It was already beginning before the apostle's died, hence Galatians and the first three chapters of Revelation as well as I, II John.

-- Anonymous, February 26, 2000

Dear Beer, you say:

I've often thought that one of the reasons that paved the way for the apostasy, ultimately resulting in the Catholic church, was the "search and destroy" persecution of Domitian in 96 A.D. (the setting of Revelation), that destroyed the vast majority of strong leaders and left the church with a leadership vacuum.

Is it not interesting, then, that practices such as pouring, sprinking, and the monarchial bishop (a.k.a., "the" pastor) developed shortly after this?

Yeah, I guess Jesus didn't really do a very good job of establishing a church because it fell into apostasy within 100 years. Hmm. That seems to go against what he said in Mt. 16:18 the gates of hell will not prevail against this church. And John 14:16 the Holy Spirit will be with you always. It's unfortunate that we had to wait 1400 years before the true church of Jesus Christ was discovered again.>>

Our mistake is that we consider what the *church* is today as being what Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against. He was talking about His body...the ekklesia. He was going to build His ekklesia on the truth that He was the Son of God.

All the denominations we have today is what has been made out of the body of Christ (which is a part of the kingdom) through traditions of mere man. When one shines the light of God's truth on what is going on today the traditions show up for what they are..

-- Beerman (frbeerman@juno.com), February 26, 2000.

-- Anonymous, February 26, 2000

Nelta:

As usual you find a way, in your Neo-orthodox theology, to come up with your most absurd post yet! I will begin by pointing to your ridiculous question in your post script wherein you actually ask us to decide who we think SHOULD be persecuted more today! I now quote your exact words:

Nelta p.s. Who do you think should be more persecuted more today?

The scriptures do teach that all who live Godly in Christ shall suffer persecution but it says nothing about Christians sitting around in any forum and deciding in advance whom SHOULD BE persecuted more than others. The truth is that NONE should be persecuted but that all who live Godly WILL suffer persecution!

No Christian, in their right minds could even begin to contemplate that ANYONE SHOULD BE persecuted for ANY reason! What kind of question is that for Christians to contemplate! We are told to contemplate better things that this!  Finally, Brethren, whatsoever things are TRUE, whatsoever things are JUST, whatsoever things are PURE, whatsoever things are LOVELY, whatsoever things are of GOOD REPORT, and if there be any VIRTUE, and if there be any PRAISE, THINK ON THESE THINGS. (Philippians 4:8).

But Nelta, You do not want to contemplate the TRUTH. For you have not only deliberately lied about your brother in this forum by falsely accusing brother Danny of having something against women you have also attempted to teach false doctrine denying the TRUTH that there is a post of oversight in the church made up of elders who are men who possess the qualifications described in 1Timothy 3:1- 8 and Titus 1: 5-11. You deny the truth by falsely claiming, There is no Greek word for authority in the New Testament. You deny the truth taught in 1 Corinthians 11:3 that the Man is the head of the woman by falsely, and completely contrary to all linguistic and Lexical evidence that has been presented, claiming that this word kaphale- which is correctly translated in all reputable versions as head-means source instead of head.

You then deluge this forum with a string of pathetic plays that fill our minds with everything concerning Elders in the church that is all but things that are of good report. You have said nothing about the good elders in the New Testament who were faithful to their charge to encourage those men among us who are striving to do this good work (1Timothy 3:1) to be strong and hold to the faith. No, Nelta, all you have done toward the elders in the church is to slander them and attempt, however feebly, to lead a rebellion against, not the bad elders, but the entire scriptural concept of the elders as overseers in the body of Christ. You have been running headlong in the rebellion of Korah (Jude 11).

I have called upon you, at every opportunity and without ceasing, to repent of your EVIL deeds. But you continue to be stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears (Acts 7:58) and refuse to turn from your sins!

So it is very possible that because of our constant admonitions for you to repent that you feel somewhat persecuted. In fact, it seems that the other false teachers such as Mark who has been trying to impose his Anglo-Israel nonsense onto the forum also feels persecuted. However, the truth is that you have not been persecuted but rather your doctrines have been completely refuted and dealt with so that you have nothing left to say! For this reason you RUN, as Mark also does, and HIDE from the truth. You have not been forced to run rather, you have been urged to repent. But you would rather run and hide than face the truth and yield to it in humble repentance from repenting of these sins, which we have conclusively proven that you are guilty of having committed in this forum. That is not persecution from those of us who admonish you to repent; rather, it is your rebellion against the very word of God and your complete unwillingness to be guided by and submit to the Lord Jesus Christ and his commands as once delivered to the saints.

Brother Wilson is correct, there are many in places like China and Vietnam and others where the Christians suffer persecution at the hands of those who speak lies! And if you knew some of these Christians, as I do, your Neo-Orthodoxy would fade away like a drop of dew in the midday sun!

When one stands for the truth it will not be long until someone begins to persecute them with LIES. You are an example of this very fact. Brother Danny strongly challenged your Neo-Orthodox nonsense and you responded by falsely accusing him of having something against women. This was a lie! It was a lie that you knew was completely false and fabricated when you told it. It was therefore a deliberate lie told by you with the intent to persecute your own brother in Christ because he would not allow you to just teach your false doctrines without challenging you. He showed himself to be very able to stop the mouth of those who advocate Neo-Orthodox lies. You could not bear it and therefore you began a campaign to falsely accuse him and to leave the impression that those who oppose you in this forum are MEN who have something against women in order to create confusion and to gain sympathy for your neo orthodox cause. You have done to brother Danny the very thing that Christ said people like you would do to those who stand with the truth to oppose false doctrine for Christ sake. For Mark 5:10-12 does verily say, "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad; for great is your reward in heaven; for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you."

You have said: Someone once suggested that martyrs, nor faithful saints, are never made by those who do not raise "tongue nor pen" in opposition to the powers of darkness in their day." And you are proof of the truthfulness of your own quotation. For our Brother Danny raised his tongue or pen against your Neo- Orthodox darkness and you reviled him and said all manner of evil against him FALSELY. And our brother Danny suffered it for His sake. Then you come in here and ask us who should be persecuted the most? Are you planning a barrage of lies and need a list of victims? You have one on your list already. I have called upon you to repent of this evil that you have committed against your brother but you continue to refuse. I am glad that the elders still have authority in the church. For I suspect that if you had your way and Neo- orthodox theologians such as yourself ever gain a position of strength in the church there will be a great persecution afoot in the brotherhood. Brother Danny would most likely be your very first target!

You are without doubt guilty of these things, Nelta, and your effort to paint yourself, as a martyr for the Neo-Orthodox cause is a pitiful sight to behold! Just pitiful!

Your acting as if there are no faithful Christians that are this very moment suffering the loss of their families, their human rights, and even their very lives because they believe the very things that you have constantly condemned in this forum is a shame and a disgrace. Until you repent of these deliberate lies you have told, all of your talk about truth is nothing short of pure hypocrisy. Your evil cup is not yet full and your desire to teach lies is insatiable and your stubborn impenitent spirit makes it all unforgivable. You will face God in the judgment for these things Nelta. I urge you again to repent. For the spirit of the Martyrs is not the one that you possess!

For those who love the truth,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, February 26, 2000

By the way, Beerman is my real name.

Scott,

I'm not sure what your complaint is. First you seem to say that is was bad for popes to be married, then you say that it is a bad rule of the Catholic Church to require celibacy of priests. We can't have it both ways. (Though there is Scriptural evidence for the value of celibacy Mt. 19:12 and 1 Cor. 7:32-35)

I will admit wholeheartedly that there were serious sins committed by people in the Catholic Church and I myself continue to commit sins today. But that seems to be something that noone is exempt from. There were a lot of deaths at the hands of the Protestants as well during the 30 years war and let's not forget the execution of Michael Servetus by Calvin because he wasn't "orthodox". The Holy Father has already apologized for these sins of the Catholic Church's children, but I am discussing a different point here.

Let's look at the teaching authority of the Church that was given to the apostles (John 14:26) It is true that there were certain sectors of the church (ekklesia) that fell into error. But the church as a whole never could because of Jesus' promise. How else could we have a guarantee of the truth that Jesus taught? There had to be some part of the Church that remained free from error, what part was that?

If we say the Church bishops fell into error within the first 100 years, then the bible no longer has authority because it was the bishops who definitively determined which books would be included in the bible in the 4th century.

During the 4th century, a *majority* of the Church believed in Arianism, that Jesus was not of the same substance of the Father, that he was created and that there was a time when he was not. At the Council of Nicea it took the voice of the bishop of Rome to express the true faith, which all the bishops then ratified, the truth that is now contained in the Nicene Creed.

Looking back over the history of the Church, they realized that it was always the bishop of Rome that maintained the true faith and thereby discovered that the successors of Peter, namely, Linus, Cletus, Clement, etc. had the same authority as Peter holding the keys to the kingdom of heaven, the authority to bind and loosen on earth always in obedience to Christ.

In Acts 15:6-12 Peter gets up and states that Gentiles coming into the Christian faith do not need to be circumcised. How could he make an authoritative statement like that unless he has that authority from Christ?

The Church's teaching of papal infallibility does not say that the pope will be free from personal sin, or even free from error every time he speaks. All it says is that when the bishop of Rome speaks authoritatively as head of the Church on matters of faith or morals, his statements are free from error. Luke 22:32 "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail, and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers" If Jesus prays that the faith of Peter will not fail, do you think that prayer would go unanswered? Infallible=not capable of failing.

-- Anonymous, February 26, 2000

Jesus prayed that his faith would be unfailing, not that he would be error-free (for thats what infallible really means). I seem to recall that Peter was in error after that on at least one occasion, and Paul had to call him on the carpet about it.

It also doesn't say Peter's successors (if, indeed, there were any, but thats a whole other discussion) would be error-free. You are just simply reading too much into the verses you quote, Beerman

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2000

Mr. Beerman:

I understand that you accept Catholicism and bow down to the Pope as the head of the church and Vicar of Christ on earth but I do not and no one who is a Christian can ever do such without losing his eternal soul. You have said the following concerning the doctrine of Papal infallibility:

All it says is that when the bishop of Rome speaks authoritatively as head of the Church on matters of faith or morals, his statements are free from error.

This teaching may be the Catholic Churchs teaching but it is diametrically opposed to the very teaching of Christ! First of all the POPE has absolutely no right whatsoever to speak as the head of the LORDS church for Christ is the sole head of the church in heaven and on earth. Just before our Lord ascended into the heavens he said, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven AND ON EARTH. Matthew 28:19,20. He did not say I have authority in heaven and I have recognized Peter as the POPE and he has authority in my place on the earth! The great apostle Paul, whom we all agree was inspired of God in what he said to us, said,  And He (Christ) is the head over ALL things to the church which is his body; the fullness of him that filleth all in all. (Col. 1:18). It was not until after the great apostasy predicted by Paul through the Holy Spirit that anyone pretended to be so bold as to claim to be the head of the church in Christs place on this earth. But the POPE'S arrogance does not stop with his efforts to take the place of Christ and sit upon His throne. He actually claims infallibility for himself in matters of faith and morals when he attempts to usurp the very place of Christ and assume unto himself the very authority of Christ in the very pretentious act of speaking as the head of the church. No one in all of the history of Christendom has ever shown a more rebellious spirit against the authority of Christ who is seated at Gods right hand.

Peter Himself referred to Christ as the Chief Shepherd and himself as a shepherd just like all of the other shepherds of the flock of God who were contemporaneous with him. 1Peter 5:1- the elders who are among you I exhort, who am a FELLOW Elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ Peter did not say,  As the Vicar of Christ on earth I exhort the elders among you. No Peter never once claimed to be the head of the church and he certainly was never the Vicar or one in the place of Christ on Earth. And in the 4th verse of 1 Peter 5 he refers to the appearing of the Chief Shepherd. In this verse he was referring to Christ. If he had been anything like the arrogant POPES of history who have been so bold as to claim the very place of Christ on earth and to sit on His throne ruling the church he would have referred to himself as the Chief Shepherd. But Peter did no such thing. Peter refused to allow men to worship him, as the POPE of our time is known for doing. In Acts 10:24, 26 we are told, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. BUT PETER raised him up, saying, stand up; I myself am also a man. Now compare this to the behavior of the Pope whom we all have seen being worshipped as if he were Christ or God. We have all seen people fall down before the Pope and kiss his ring and worship him. One thing we have not seen however is the Pope raising these people up and telling them that he also is a MAN. Yes indeed Peter was no POPE and he refused to accept worship from others for he was only a man.

There were other apostles and none of them considered Peter to be supreme! Read these verses (Matthew 20:25-26;Luke 22:24-25; 2Cor.1: 24;Ipeter 5:3). Even the apostle Paul declared that he was equal to all of the other apostles, including Peter! (2 Cor.11: 5; Gal. 2:9). When Paul, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit described the offices in the church he did not mention any Papal office at all. (1 Cor 12:28; Eph. 4:11). In the beginning of the Church, which Christ established on the day of Pentecost, they had no POPE or anything like it. It was not until 606AD that anyone had the bold audacity to claim for himself the very throne of Christ as the HEAD OF THE CHURCH. I will never bow to anyone but Christ. Those who worship the POPE as if he is indeed the Vicar of Christ on earth or Yield to his edicts as if he is the spiritual HEAD OF THE CHURCH are nothing more than deluded idolaters who shall be punished for their idolatry. For the Pope has exalted himself to be equal with Christ our Lord. This rebellion and strong delusion is a lie. Just because it is being told in the name of Christ by those who sound as if they have a kind Christian spirit does not change the fact that it is a lie!

When Paul warned of the great apostasy he described some of the false doctrines that would be taught and one of those was forbidding to marry and commanding to obtain from meats. (1Tim. 4:1). The Catholics teach both. The man of sin has been revealed,  the son of perdition, He that opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God. A better description of the Pope could not have ever been written!

So, if we wish to discuss Catholicism let us begin at the right point. The Pope has no authority in the Church according to the very word of God. If he has no authority in the Church then Catholicism falls. Come in here and show us just how you have determined that Christ has given any authority to the Pope. It will not do to talk of Peter as if he was the first Pope for we have shown that he was never recognized as such by Christ, the apostles or the New Testament Church.

IF you wish to affirm that the Holy Scriptures teach that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth and that we must all therefore submit to his authority as the head of the Church as we would submit to Christ then I will deny it and we can have a formal discussion of it. Let me know if you would like to arrange for a debate on this matter in this forum or in any other place suitable to the both of us. If the Pope does not have such authority and you cannot prove that he does then you have every reason to leave the Catholic Church and its Idolatrous practice of worshiping the Pope.

Since the Pope has no such authority, it follows that he has no need for infallibility. God is the only one who is ever infallible and the Pope, though he pretends to be the Vicar (In the place of) of Christ on earth, he is not truly the Vicar of Christ nor is he God and thus is completely undeserving of worship. In fact, the Pope is not even Christian for he has never been obedient to the gospel of Christ. Even when the apostles spoke God bore witness to the truthfulness of their words both by signs and wonders, and by manifold powers, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to his will. (Heb. 2:4). This he has not done for any POPE. Christ we know and the apostles we know for God bore witness to them but these who claim to be apostles but are not we completely reject! It is a gross sin for anyone to yield to the POPE in any thing whatsoever. He is not even in the Church much less is he the head of it.

For the Head of the Church, Christ our Lord,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2000

E. Lee Saffold,

You have no authority to tell me the truth because you are not Jesus. Therefore what you say must be false.

Ridiculous statement, right? Yet that is what you are saying about the pope.

I think first of all we must clarify what the Catholic Church actually claims about the pope. You are making wild claims that are not what the Catholic Church really holds. If we are going to have any discussion or dialogue we would do well to not misrepresent the other side or what they actually believe.

1. Catholics do not bow down to the pope. 2. Catholics do not worship the pope. 3. I *have* seen the pope pull people up who are attempting to kiss his ring, not because it's wrong but because it may give the wrong impression to certain people. If it's wrong to kiss the ring of the pope then it is wrong to kiss anything that is not Jesus. When someone kisses his wife, does that mean he is worshiping his wife as God? If I were to kiss the Bible, would that mean that I am worshiping the bible? There is a difference between giving someone honor and respect as we do to people in authority and worshiping them. There is not a single Catholic as far as I know that thinks the pope is God and if they did I would be right by your side denouncing them.

Regarding infallibility: I repeat that it is not referring to everything the pope says. It only applies to very limited occasions. Secondly, the pope has no power to arbitrarily invent a new teaching that does not come from Christ. He is only there to preserve and maintain the truth. When Peter stood up and said the Gentiles did not need to be circumcised, why did the people listen to him? Why didn't they say, as you do, that he cannot speak for Christ and therefore is the man of iniquity? I would be very careful in using that term because what if you are actually maligning the one that Jesus has established as the messenger of his truth?

So, yes, the pope can sin and make mistakes. I agree wholeheartedly and so does the Catholic Church. But he cannot err when he is speaking in the name of Christ.

Yes, Christ is the head of the Church. The Catholic Church teaches that as well and I can't believe that you would consider Catholics to be so abominable as to place a mere man in the position that belongs to Christ alone.

You said, [First of all the POPE has absolutely no right whatsoever to speak as the head of the LORDS church for Christ is the sole head of the church in heaven and on earth.]

You could also say that the Bible has no right to speak for Christ because it is the Lord alone who reveals us the truth. But Jesus did give others authority to speak for him. Lk 10:16 "whoever hears you, hears me, whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me, rejects the one who sent me." So it seems clear that Jesus gave this authority at least to the apostles.

Who is the head of the apostles, or are they all equal? There is evidence that Peter is given primacy.

He is the rock upon which the Church is built (Mt. 16:18) (the word in Aramaic for Peter and rock is the same, though the greek word for rock is different from Peter because the Greek word for rock is feminine and the name Peter is masculine.)

He receives the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Mt. 16:19) which were previously mentioned in Is. 22:22 referring to David holding the keys to Jerusalem. Jesus is the Son of David and holds the keys to the new Jerusalem (Rev. 3:7) also known as heaven. These are the keys he gives to Peter. If that is not giving him authority then I don't know what is. Jesus actually gives him the power to bind and loosen. What he declares bound on earth is bound in heaven and what he declares loose is loosed in heaven.

Peter's faith will strengthen his brethren (Lk 22:32)

He is asked by Jesus to feed his flock (Jn 21:17)

The angel says to the women at the tomb "Go and tell his disciples and Peter (Mk 16:7)

In the Gospel of Luke, the risen Jesus appeared to Peter before the other apostles (Lk 24:34)

He headed the meeting which chose another apostle to take the place of Judas (Acts 1:13-26)

Peter led the apostles in preaching on Pentecost (Acts 2:14)

He received the first converts after his message was given (Acts 2:41)

Acts 3:6-7 Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost.

Peter inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11)

He excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:21)

He led the first council of Jerusalem (Acts 15)

He pronounced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:11)

Peter's name always heads the list of the apostles (Mt 10:1-4, Mk 3:16-19, Lk 6:14-16, Acts 1:13)

He spoke on behalf of the apostles (Mt. 18:21, Mk 8:29, Lk 12:41 John 6:69)

Peter's name occurs 195 times which is more than all the rest of the apostles put together.

If he has no position of primacy then wouldn't all these things be shared by the other apostles? Why is Peter the one who seems to be given priority by Jesus and by the authors of the New Testament?

I have read your argument and a central misunderstanding you seem to make is thinking that the pope is standing as the head of church *in place of* Christ as though Jesus was removed as the head and the pope put in his place. That is not Catholic teaching. The pope is head of the church in the same way that a bishop oversees his flock or a pastor is head of the parish. Another of his titles is "servant of the servants of God" His role is service, to maintain the truth taught by Christ in the face of those who teach error.

Jesus said in Matthew "I have all authority on heaven and earth" but if you read on, he commanded his apostles to go to all nations "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you."

I don't know how you can say the pope has a rebellious spirit when he is not claiming to teach anything different from what Jesus Christ taught. A rebellious spirit says the opposite of what Christ taught.

Peter does refer to Christ as the Chief Shepherd, but if you read on, he says "you younger members, be subject to the presbyters." Wait a minute, I thought we were only supposed to be subject to Christ? Peter is saying that you can be subject to Christ through another person.

Mt. 20:25-26 The pope is the servant of the servants of God. His role in teaching the truth is a mission of service. There have been popes who have sinned personally and probably lorded it over others, but that is a separate issue from his teaching office.

Lk 22:24-26 Again the role of servant is greater. But if you read on, you will see that the apostles will be given thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel.

2 Cor. 1:24 The goal of any apostle and the pope is to lead people to the faith in Christ that they already have. Read a few lines earlier: God has anointed them and put his seal upon them.

2 Cor 11:5 Paul says he is not inferior to these "superapostles" which he goes on later to call false apostles (vs. 17) so they cannot refer to the apostle in Jerusalem but perhaps some preachers who claim to have the authority of the apostles but do not.

Gal 2:9 Paul is claiming the authority of an apostle, not denying the primacy of Peter. Before this he went to confer with Kephas (Peter) in Jerusalem (Gal 1:18)

1 Cor 12:28 the "first" office is that of apostle. Peter was an apostle. And seems to have primacy among the apostles.

606 A.D.?

The first evidence of the word pope is in 250 A.D. a letter from the clergy of Rome to the clergy of Carthage refers to Pope Cyprian (Cyprian was the bishop of the Church in Carthtage) Later the term was restricted to refer only to the bishop of Rome..

St. Clement, the third bishop of Rome after Peter, circa 80 A.D. laid claim to this authority when he wrote to correct the Church in Corinth because of their rebellion "If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve thmeselves in transgression and in no small danger."

St. Ignatius of Antioch writes in 110 A.D. "Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in His death you might escape dying. It is necessary therefore that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject to the presbytery, as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ our Hope." (Letter to the Trallians, 2,1).

St. Hegesippus writes circa 180 A.D. "When I had come to Rome, I made a succession up to Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus, Soter succeeded, and after him, Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city, there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the Law, the Prophets, and the Lord."

St. Irenaeus writes in about 190 A.D. refuting the doctrine of heretics who claimed to have special secret knowledge, "If the apostles had known hidden mysteries which they taught to the elite secretly and apart from the rest, they would have handed them down especially to those very ones to whom they were committing the self-same Churches. For surely they wished all those and their successors to be perfect and without reproach, to whom they handed on their authority." (Against Heresies, 3,3,1)

He goes on to say, "It suffices to point out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comess down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition." (ibid, 3,3,2)

This is amazing to see that this was written in 190 A.D!

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2000

Mr. Beerman:

I want to say that I appreciate very much your response to my post. I truly appreciate anyone who boldly makes their assertions and sincerely attempts to offer evidence to support them. This makes for a good opportunity to have our positions examined in the light of the word of God and to test them and "prove all things and hold fast to that which is good".

I must, however, express my disappointment that you begin your response with a pure misrepresentation of my words. You begin your response with these words:

"You have no authority to tell me the truth because you are not Jesus. Therefore what you say must be false.

Ridiculous statement, right? Yet that is what you are saying about the pope."

Now Mr. Beerman, this statement of yours is indeed just as ridiculous as your claim that the Pope is the "Head of the Church" but it is nothing like what I said at all. I did not in any place in my article say " You have no authority to tell me the truth because you are not Jesus. Therefore what you say must be false."

I challenge you to quote my exact words wherein you claim that I have said such a thing. In fact you cannot even show from my words that I even implied such nonsense. I said nothing like that at all and anyone with the ability to read can see that I never said any such thing. I was responding to your words concerning papal infallibility, which I now quote:

"All it says is that when the bishop of Rome speaks authoritatively as head of the Church on matters of faith or morals, his statements are free from error."

With these words you affirmed the right of the Pope to speak "authoritatively". You claim that this authority resides in his being the "head of the church". In my response to this I complained that he could not speak "authoritatively as the head of the church" not because he is "not Jesus" but because he is not the head of the church as you claim. I did not reason from this that anything that he says must be false. I have no doubts that he can speak the truth, and I am certain that he may sometimes do just that, but he cannot speak "authoritatively as the head of the church" because he is not the head of the church. I am saying that he does not have any authority in the church of Christ and he surely does not have the authority to speak as the head of the Church of Christ. Everyone, even non- Christians, including Catholics, have the right or authority to speak the truth to me. I will readily accept anything from you that you can prove from the scriptures to be the truth of God even if you were an Atheist. And if the Pope wants me to believe something he also had better prove from the word of God that his statements are true for I will not accept anything on his false claims of "speaking AS the head of the church!" For the truth is the truth regardless of the character of the messenger. Therefore your charge that I said the Pope has no authority to tell me the truth is clearly the very kind of misrepresentation that you complain against. He can speak the truth but I will accept it only if his words can be verified by the word of God.

I very plainly said that the Pope has no authority to speak AS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH. For he is not the head of the church. This was my claim, not that he has no right to speak because he is not Jesus; rather, that he has no right to speak as the head of the church because he does not hold that position. Only Christ is the head of the church (Col. 1:18). We can all speak for Christ but none of us can speak as the Christ. Since Christ is the only head of the Church (Col. 1:18) then no one but Christ can speak authoritatively AS the head of the Church. For there is no doubt that Christ is the only head of the Church For we are told, " And He (Christ) is the head of the body the church that in all things He might have the preeminence" (Col. 1:18). You even agree in your post that he is the ONLY head of the church with your words that I now quote for all to see:

"Yes, Christ is the head of the Church. The Catholic Church teaches that as well and I can't believe that you would consider Catholics to be so abominable as to place a mere man in the position that belongs to Christ alone."

But in your own words you have "placed a mere man" in that position when you said, "All it says is that when the bishop of Rome speaks authoritatively as head of the Church on matters of faith or morals, his statements are free from error."

If Christ is the ONLY head of the church, a position which even you have said "belongs to Christ alone" then how can you be so "Abominable" as to place the Pope in the position of speaking "authoritatively as the head of the Church". Those were your words, Mr. Beerman, not mine. Therefore I have not misrepresented you. You do not have him merely speaking FOR Christ who IS the head of the Church. You have him speaking AS or in the "place of Christ" who is the ONLY head of the Church. If Christ is God, as he surely is! And you put the Pope in His place and yield to Him as if he actually possesses the AUTHORITY to speak AS the head of the church (who is Christ alone); then, you surely cannot avoid the charge of elevating the Pope to the "place" of God! Now can you? You most certainly should be able to understand how someone could draw the conclusion that you do in fact put the POPE in the PLACE of Christ! For how else could he "speak AS the head of the Church" as you have claimed? In your very statement you attempt to place the Pope in the "place of Christ" as the head of the church. The Pope can speak the truth with the same authority of any ordinary human being but he cannot speak AS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH because only Christ holds that position. This was my point and your feeble effort to make it APPEAR otherwise only shows the lengths to which you are willing to go to support your erroneous and outrageous claim that the Pope is the head of the church.

Nevertheless I appreciate your offering some arguments from the word of God that you believe establishes that the Pope is the head of the church. I appreciate your allowing us to examine them in this forum. You complain, as I have done, concerning your response, that I have misrepresented what Catholic Church actually claims about the pope with these words:

"I think first of all we must clarify what the Catholic Church actually claims about the pope. You are making wild claims that are not what the Catholic Church really holds. If we are going to have any discussion or dialogue we would do well to not misrepresent the other side or what they actually believe."

I have no desire; neither do I have any intent, to misrepresent you or the Catholic Church concerning any of their claims about any subject. I will therefore limit my "wild claims" to actual quotations from authentic sources concerning what they believe. Any such claim made by me that I cannot prove from quotations from you or reliable Catholic sources or reliable quotations of Catholic's from non-Catholic sources I shall consider to be a misrepresentation and will withdraw it with my apologies until I can substantiate it by those means. THis includes all of my "wild claims" that I have thus far made. I will either substaniate them as described above or withdraw them. Will that be fair enough for you?

I hope that you will reciprocate and do the same when you have also misrepresented anything that I have said or the views of Christians who are opposed to Roman Catholicism. Therefore I agree with you that if we have a dialogue, we would do well to not misrepresent the other side in what they actually believe.

Now, I have asked you to enter into a dialogue by our beginning with clearly stated propositions so that we can avoid these misrepresentations. I am denying what appears to be your position that the Pope is the head of the Church of Christ. Why do not we begin with your stating and defining your proposition clearly for us so that we do not misrepresent what you say? I asked you to engage in a formal discussion of this issue but you ignored my request and yet you complain of being misrepresented. This is indeed the very kind of thing that a formal debate with propositions clearly stated and defined with some guidelines can prevent. Such would allow for both of us to follow a course toward a profitable discussion. It is a suggestion that I offered in the hopes that we can engage in a reasonable discussion of this matter. Let me know if you are willing to clearly define your position, affirm it and defend it in a formal discussion with guidelines that will allow for fairness to both sides. If you are unwilling to do this then do not complain too much if and when you are misunderstood and accuse those of us who respond to you of intentionally misrepresenting you and other Catholics. For it would be extremely unfair for you to avoid these overtures to ensure that you are treated fairly and then accuse us of having such unfairness as our original intent.

I am at work at the moment and I must go to finish for the day. I will return to take up your arguments, which you have so diligently prepared when I finish driving through monstrous traffic to my home. Please forgive the interruption in my response. I do these things as I have time, as I am sure you do as well. I do have much that I want to say concerning your arguments. There are many things wherein I believe that you fail to understand the word of God. I will discuss them ALL as soon as I get home.

I do pray that our Lord Jesus Christ will bless you with a deeper and abiding understanding of His eternal word and that he will bless your family with peace, happiness, and Joy that comes from his grace to all who obey Him in all things. (Hebrews 5:8,9).

For our Lord Jesus Christ, the ONLY Head of the Church of Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, February 28, 2000

I apologize for being so strident. I think we perhaps talking about two different senses of the word "head".

In one sense the absolute head and only head of the church is the position occupied by Christ alone.

However, can we not say that there is a person who is "head" of the family, that is the father? Also is there a head of a parish who is the pastor. And the head of a local church would be a bishop. The head of the local church of Rome also has jurisdiction over the whole Church and therefore has primacy. That's all I'm saying. The pope is head of the Church not in the sense that the bible refers to Christ as the Head, but in the sense that he is a shepherd or pastor or bishop. The authority lies with all bishops as the Catholic Church states and I tried to show evidence for that from the bible and the early Church Fathers, but which remains to be discussed. So, the authority lies with all the bishops but there seems to be a certain primacy to the bishop of Rome because of the fact that that church was founded by Peter who had primacy among the apostles.

I do agree that it would be a good way to go step by step in establishing what we can agree upon based upon what we hold to be the truth as taught by Jesus Christ. I will admit that there is already a difficulty in that you accept the written Word as the only source of authority and therefore the only thing that can be used to back an argument. Obviously we also use our own reason as a source of truth, because we can know *some* truth with our own minds independent of Scripture. Also we use our reason to interpret what Scripture is saying in its own context.

I go only by the Word of God, written or handed down orally.

-- Anonymous, February 28, 2000

Mr. Beerman:

I appreciate your response. I am not finished with my answer to your previous post because I have not been home from work very long and I have to do some things with my family. I am sure that you understand that I must do those important things first. But I will finish my response to your previous post first. Then I will speak to your present one. We can only discuss one thing at a time. So the is no need to shift gears just now until I finish my response to your first post. I expect to have some time to finish it tommorrow.

I recommend highly that you and I visit via e-mail and hash out some propositions that you will affirm and I will deny or that I will affirm and you will deny so that we can bring some order to our dicussion that will allow us to discuss these matters in such a way that all can profit from the discussion.

You are correct in saying that we differ concerning the word of God. You accept "oral tradition" so it seems as the very word of God. I do not. But as you can see that is a different subject from the one that we have been discussing. Let us come up with propositions concerning these subjects and debate them idividually, each in their proper and our agreed upon order until the complete ground is covered. This way will allow us to approach these matters in a way that all can learn. Who knows, even you may learn something about these things! Ha!

Contact me via e-mail and lets organize this discussion. I also want to mention that you have ignored several of my areguments in my first post and have not dealt with my questions in my previous one. If we are going to discuss these things we must both determine to give attention to all of the arguments that are made. I know that you are probably as busy as I am but if we are going to spend time talking about these very important matters we must respect the fact that the time spent in making an argument at least requires that it be noticed by the other person. Otherwise we are just talking at each other instead of with each other.

Your friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, February 28, 2000

*child tugging on mommy's sleeve*

"Mommy, mommy! Look at that funny man! He's got a bunch of heads and no arms or legs!"

In Him,

-- Anonymous, February 29, 2000

E. Lee Saffold,

I agree that the discussion should be well-ordered and not reduced to ad hominem attacks, nor brief barbs that are only intended to sting the other. I also think that we should not expect to be in a great hurry in responding to these posts. It seems that we are both busy, which is good, because that means we have a life, so I'm willing to post maybe once a day or so.

I would hope that the true goal of this discussion is to discover the truth and not necessarily to prove that "I'm right and you're wrong". I see much value in what you write and I do not think we are necessarily in total disagreement. The value of all ecumenical discussion ultimately is to be united in one faith so that we can get to the real work of bringing others to Christ. It seems that that task would be much more efficacious if we presented a united front.

In all discussions my own faith in Christ is deepened along with a greater wonder and awe at the revelation of God. I can only hope that the same is true for you, though you will have to make that statement for yourself.

One thing more, though you may argue that I haven't done so in the past, I will try to read all of your posts in the most positive light possible, that is to not impute bad intentions or implied unbelief. I hope that you would respond the same to me. For example. "He says the pope is the head of the Church, obviously he can't mean that the pope is trying to take the place of Christ and remove Christ from that position, so in what possible way could it be while still maintaining the true faith." As opposed to, "the Catholic Church claims that the pope is the head of the church and therefore the Catholic Church is the antichrist personified because they worship the pope as God and have thrown down Jesus Christ"

If you're asking me to be open to what you say to "learn something" then I guess I can ask the same of you. To put your religion on the line and be willing to enter the Catholic Church if you discover that that is where the truth subsists. I suspect the real temptation here is intellectual pride, especially on my part, to think that my arguments are going to be so good that I can persuade anyone. Chances are, that will not be the case, but there is certainly a lot of information out there that can be read to learn more about these differences if nothing else.

Perhaps if you do not like the word "head" to refer to the pope we can come up with another word that means the same thing without all the implied connotations that you seem to be reading into it. How about "ambassador for Christ," Bishop of Rome, the one holding primacy among the bishops in the Church, or servant of the servants of God?

I'm not quite sure which arguments from you're first post you are talking about that I ignored. There was a lot there!

-- Anonymous, February 29, 2000

Mr. Beerman,

Please forgive my seemingly "ad hominem" attack on your previous post here. It was meant to be a light-hearted poke at what I see as faulty logic. (I really need to THINK before I post, I get into MORE trouble that way.)

There can only be ONE HEAD of the Church and that would be Christ. Now if we are only speaking of semantics and you really meant the Pope was just another ambassador of Christ... then that is another story all together. (In II Corinthians 5:20 Paul, speaking of Christians, says "We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us." --not just the Pope)

However, if you mean that the Pope is actually at the TOP of the hierarchy of the Church on Earth... then that is a horse of another color. Please supply scripture showing us this theology???

Now I know that you and Lee are planning on having an organized discussion and please feel free to not answer this post, it will not hurt my feelings in the least. I realize that it will be a more fruitful discussion for all involved if you do just that. However, I could not just set on the sidelines without letting you know how I view scripture in this light.

Now I want you to know that I already love your spirit in light of what you have already posted and how you've responded to some of our brothers and sisters in this forum. I can see that you have a passion for the Word of God and for the History of the Church. I truly hope and pray that your spirit will remain open to His Spirit as you and Lee discuss the issues brought about here. As I also pray for Lee and the other readers and posters here to reamian open to His Spirit. We may all actually learn something through this thread.

In Him,

-- Anonymous, February 29, 2000

Mr. Beerman:

I appreciate very much your patience in allowing me to find some time to respond to your words. You are kind in that regard and I thank you. I will now continue my response to your post dated February 27th 2000 wherein you said many things but primarily you attempted to establish a primacy for the apostle Peter in such a way as to justify your claim that the pope is the "head of the church". I will take up your words and respond to every point that you have made. For Clarity I will quote what you have said and give my response following the quotation. I will attempt to put your quotes in italics, a gesture of respect for a Roman Catholic! Ha! However, I have noticed that the Italics do not come through when I post to the forum. In which case I shall be sure to mark your words in quotations and separate them by a space from the rest of the document.

First, I have already responded to your request that we clarify what the Catholic Church actually believes about the Pope:

"I think first of all we must clarify what the Catholic Church actually claims about the pope."

I have already agreed that we should do just that and I will do so by referring to your words, quotations from Catholic sources, and reliable quotations from non-Catholic sources to establish what I have said concerning that matter.

Now you tell us that Catholics do not bow down to the pope:

"1. Catholics do not bow down to the pope. 2. Catholics do not worship the pope."

But I believe that this quotation from the Catholic Encyclopedia certainly appears to indicate otherwise.

"The kissing of the pope's foot-the characteristic act of reverence by which all the faithful do honor to him as the Vicar of Christ-is found as early as the eighth century." (Catholic Enc. XII, P. 270).

It does seem that they would have to bow down or at least kneel down to accomplish this "reverent" act to bestow honor on him because he is, according to Catholics, the Vicar of Christ. Now notice, and you can look this up for yourself in any good dictionary, the word "Vicar" is related to the word "vicarious" and it means "in the place of". So we often speak of the vicarious suffering of Christ. By this we mean that Christ suffered in our place. In the same way, when Catholics refer to the pope in their writings as the Vicar of Christ they mean to say that he is in the "place of Christ". Now this is not a misrepresentation of Catholic teaching. Now if Mr. Beerman does not agree with the Catholics concerning this matter he needs to tell us so that we do not misrepresent him by assuming that he agrees with Catholic teaching in everything.

Now this kissing of the pope's feet has no way of being honestly compared, in the language of the Catholic Encyclopedia about this matter, to kissing your wife! Almost any thoughtful person can clearly see the difference. As far as kissing the Bible you will certainly not find a faithful Christian turning the lifeless binding and the pages of the word of God into an idol. It is surely possible to betray the Lord Jesus Christ with a kiss as in the case of Judas. But the case of someone kissing the pope's feet reminds us of the woman that kissed the Lord's feet. That was worship to the Lord and he is worthy of it and in the Last Day when I see him I will fall down at His feet and kiss Him. That I am reserving only for my Lord Jesus Christ. No pope, or any human being on this earth will ever get that kind of respect and REVERENCE from me! For to do such a thing would surely have me putting the pope in the "place of Christ" in my heart and that will never happen. Yes, Mr. Beerman, as you say:

"There is a difference between giving someone honor and respect as we do to people in authority and worshiping them."

And we know the difference. This bowing to the pope, which you say in one place that "Catholics do not do" and in another place- "3. I *have* seen the pope pull people up who are attempting to kiss his ring"- that you have seen the pope "lift someone up" from attempting to do that very thing that you say they do not do, is surely considered by our Lord to be an act of worship. For when the Devil tempted our Lord to "fall down and worship him" He said, " get thee behind me Satan: For it is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and Him only shalt thou serve". (Matt. 4:10).

So we will not bow down to the pope as both you and I have seen Catholics do and as the Catholic Encyclopedia tells us that they "reverently" do.

I will now quote something from a Catholic source called the "Great Encyclical Letters" (page 193) to show from your own documents that Catholics do in fact "submit to the Pope as to God Himself".

"But the supreme teacher in the Church is the Roman PONTIF. Union of minds, therefore, requires together with a perfect accord in one faith, complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff AS UNTO GOD HIMSELF". (Great Encyclical Letters, p. 193).

Now you have promised Mr. Beerman that you will stand beside us and denounce such as believe these things:

"There is not a single Catholic as far as I know that thinks the pope is God and if they did I would be right by your side denouncing them." So I hope you will come in here and get "right by our side and denounce" these Catholics who wrote these "Great Encyclical Letters" for saying such things.

The Council of Trent calls the Pope "Our Most Holy Lord". This is done on page 159, and in the Decrees forbidding the possession and reading of the Bible they use this phrase again, page 278. This would place him above God, just as Paul by inspiration predicted in 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

I now quote this lengthy passages from those documents for your reading pleasure and so that we do not misrepresent anything that our friends in the Catholic Church really believe. "Wherefore resting on plain testimonies of the sacred writings, and adhering to the plain and express decrees, both of our predecessors, the Roman Pontiffs, and of the General Councils, we renew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence (1439 A. D.), in virtue of which all the faithful of Christ must believe that the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff possesses the primacy over the whole world, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and is the true Vicar of Christ, and head of the whole Church, and the Father and Teacher of all Christians; and that full power has been given to him in Blessed Peter to rule, feed, and govern the Universal Church by Jesus Christ our Lord, as is also contained in the acts of the General Councils, and in the Sacred Canons."

"Hence we teach and declare that by appointment of our Lord, the Roman Church possesses a superiority of ordinary power over all other churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly Episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatever rite or dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound by their duty of hierarchical subordination, and true obedience, to submit not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that pertain to the discipline and the government throughout the world; so that the Church of Christ may be one flock, under one supreme pastor, through the preservation of unity both of communion and of profession of the same faith with the Roman Pontiff. This is the teaching of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and of salvation". (Teaching of the Catholic Church, Decrees of Council of Trent quoted in 143,144; Also in Dogmatic Decrees of the Council of Trent, pp. 159-60).

Now this shows that every Catholic must believe that the Pope is over everybody, including everyone in this forum, and if he does not believe this he is "heretical" in the eyes of the hierarchy.

Will you come in here now and "denounce" those Catholics at the Council of Trent who called the pope "Our Most Holy Lord"? Maybe you can come in here and show us that these Catholics were wrong at that time and now they have changed and they do not do that anymore. If you do we will give more evidence but this should be sufficient for now because I do not have all night to write.

Then you want to change the discussion to "infallibility". We were discussing the pope's being the "Head of the Church". But I understand that since we were discussing that subject in the context of comments you made concerning "papal infallibility" your reason for bring it up. Therefore, though it does seem to be a slight diversion from our topic I will respond to what you have said about it. However, it is time for you and I to work out the details of our propositions and the rules for our discussion in this forum so that we can keep ourselves following an orderly path and taking up subjects in a reasonable fashion so as to prevent confusion.

These are your words:

"Regarding infallibility: I repeat that it is not referring to everything the pope says. It only applies to very limited occasions. Secondly, the pope has no power to arbitrarily invent a new teaching that does not come from Christ. He is only there to preserve and maintain the truth. When Peter stood up and said the Gentiles did not need to be circumcised, why did the people listen to him? Why didn't they say, as you do, that he cannot speak for Christ and therefore is the man of iniquity?

Now I do agree and understand that the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility is in fact only referring to "very limited" occasions when the pope speaks "ex cathedra" and not to every word that he ever says. In fact, popes have very rarely used this "power" and that fact itself is an argument against it. They do not seem to have very much confidence in their own infallibility because they surely seem to be afraid to put anything in writing very often claiming to use such powers for fear that they might be wrong!

The Vatican Council which met in Rome, in 1870, defined the doctrine of the infallibility of the pope as follows:

"We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals to be held by the universal church, by the divine assistance promised him in the blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrines regarding faith and morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff of themselves - and not by virtue of consent of the Church- are irreformable."

Then attached to this, the Vatican Council of 1870 attached the following inevitable anathema on all who would dare to disagree:

" But if anyone-which may God forbid! -presume to contradict this definition: Let him be anathema."

Now you cannot say that I have misrepresented this doctrine because I have given the very definition provided by the Vatican Council of 1870, who invented this pernicious doctrine, in their own words.

But, as I have stated this is a subject that we must take up in its proper order. I only want to state right now that I take the reluctance of the popes in time of great crisis during such events as the support given by the Vatican to Mussolini in his rise to power and in his military campaigns in Ethiopia and Spain, the concordant signed by Hitler, and the unfailing support given to the Spanish dictator Franco from the very beginning of the time that he came to power as an indication that the popes themselves do not seem to believe that they have this "infallibility". During these perplexing times the popes were just as confused as everyone else. These were times when matters of faith and morals were the primary issues! But all the popes did was to merely issue encyclicals (formal letters, in Latin, addressed to all the bishops) for which no infallibility is claimed. But of what use is this papal infallibility if the popes themselves are so unsure of it as to not make good use of his supposed authority when it is needed most. He is thus infallible when he uses this power but not infallible in deciding the appropriate time to use it! One would think that the pope could see some value in giving us an infallible commentary on the entire Bible. Since he thinks that all the rest of us are so very wrong about it and so completely unable to understand it without the assistance of some priest. But no pope has ventured to use this great power of infallibility to discuss the meaning of the word of God, which effects the faith and morals of millions of sincere and devout non-Catholics and well as Catholics. Is it because he is not confident that speaking "ex cathedra" on such matters would be a benefit to all those who love God? He could not step into an arena wherein human fallibility, especially in faith and morals, has done greater harm and their absurd errors are more clearly brought to light.

Also notice that the popes, when and if they ever use this infallibility, do not tell us beforehand that they are speaking cathedra or ex cathedra. So we would never know if they are claiming infallibility or not until after we see the results. Something is surely very wrong with this papal infallibility doctrine.

The fact that they rarely use this so called infallibility is strong proof that they do not have very much confidence in this doctrine themselves. But I will save that subject until we have drawn up formal propositions to discuss the matter.

Then you give me the following warning:

" I would be very careful in using that term because what if you are actually maligning the one that Jesus has established as the messenger of his truth"

I suppose, Mr. Beerman, that this is some kind of veiled threat. But I have no fear of speaking against the pope especially since we know from your own words that he "sins and makes mistakes" unless he is speaking as you say, "in the name of Christ" which I take as a reference to his speaking "ex cathedra" which he very rarely does! For these are your words to that effect:

"So, yes, the pope can sin and make mistakes. I agree wholeheartedly and so does the Catholic Church. But he cannot err when he is speaking in the name of Christ."

I also should have no fear of speaking against the pope for we have a divine example of the great Apostle Paul withstanding Peter, who you claim to have been the first pope "to his face" for he was wrong. "But when Cephas came to Antioch I resisted him to the face because he stood condemned". (Galatians 2:1) What would happen in the Vatican today if someone so strongly resisted the pope? Your warning to me seems to indicate that I must be very careful about resisting him as I do in this forum as if such carries some kind of dire consequence.

Now, coming back to the subject of the pope being the head of the church, you say the following:

"Yes, Christ is the head of the Church. The Catholic Church teaches that as well and I can't believe that you would consider Catholics to be so abominable as to place a mere man in the position that belongs to Christ alone."

I have already answered this in my previous post and since you ignored my response to it there is no need to repeat it. It is there and we still await your response if you have any.

Then you say the following:

You said, [First of all the POPE has absolutely no right whatsoever to speak as the head of the LORD'S church for Christ is the sole head of the church in heaven and on earth.]

You could also say that the Bible has no right to speak for Christ because it is the Lord alone who reveals us the truth. But Jesus did give others authority to speak for him. Lk 10:16 "whoever hears you, hears me, whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me, rejects the one who sent me." So it seems clear that Jesus gave this authority at least to the apostles.

Now just here I need to point out to you that you did not say the pope speaks FOR Christ who IS the head of the Church but you said that the pope speaks AS the head of the Church. You have already agreed that Christ is the sole head of the church. So all of us can speak for Christ when we speak "as the oracles of God" that was given to the apostles of Christ who spoke for him the gospel. (Heb. 2:3,4). God spoke to us through his son (Hebrews 1:1). Christ spoke to the apostles through the Holy Spirit. (John 16:13; 14:26). And the apostles spoke to us through the scriptures and they therefore continue to be our only "ambassadors for Christ" to this very Day.

Therefore, even if Peter was supreme among the apostles, though he surely was not, he is still holding the same position in the Church today that he held in the first century. His inspried words combined with the inspired words of the other Apostles, who held the exact same office as did he in the New Testament church, guides our lives to this very day. Therefore no one has been given any authority to take his place as one of the Chosen apostles of Christ!

But the pope is not an apostle and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that he has "seen the Lord". The apostles are the only witness of Christ that have authority in the Church and they are still the ones who speak for Christ today through their inspired words. Which I am sure will lead us into discussing the false catholic doctrine of "apostolic succession" but I will save that for later.

But none of the apostles spoke AS the Christ. None of them claimed to be the "head of the universal Church." But they spoke as the spirit gave them utterance. (Acts 2:1-4). All of them not just Peter. There is not one place in the scriptures where Peter claimed to "speak as the head of the Church". There is no indication whatsoever that he claimed any such thing as "papal infallibility". For that was an invention of the Vatican Council of 1870. And Peter was not superior to any of the other Apostles, as I will show in my next post. Your claims of primacy of Peter over the other apostles are greatly exaggerated. Even the Catholics have not always agreed about this matter. One of the Arguments made against the infallibility of the pope at the Vatican council of 1870 was to condemn the idea that Peter had primacy among the apostles. I will give the Catholic argument first and then I will give clear evidence from the word of God that shows Peter to be equal with the other apostles and not superior in any way whatsoever.

But for now it is late and I will have to take up your "evidence" concerning Peter being given the Primacy in my next post.

I do recommend that when I finish this response to your post of 27 February, that you and I suspend our discussion until we have framed some propositions that we will discuss and the form and format in which we will discuss them and agree upon them. Then begin our discussion of those propositions in the order and manner in which we have agreed. Then we can ask Brother Schwingle, who moderates this forum, to work with us to announce the debate in another thread with the propositions and any other important details so all can easily follow our progress.

I expect to complete my response to your arguments in detail in my next post. After that I will await our agreement on the terms of our debate concerning these important matters.

Your Christian friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 01, 2000

I'm patiently awaiting your final post.

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2000

Mr. Beerman:

I am at work and just noticed your post. I thank you for your patience. I am waiting for us to discuss the propositions and terms of our upcoming debate on these issues. I just wanted to finish my reponse to your well written post of 27 Feb. first so that I do not neglect to give you an answer. But it will be my final post until we agree to the propositions that we will discuss in our organized debate on these matters.

I certianly expect you to rebut what I have said in response to your post. That is only fair. But you will have the last word until we prepare and agree upon our propositions for the formal discussion of the matters in a debate format that allows for us to make progress from one proposition to another until the entire ground is covered.

Please feel free to discuss the terms and propositions that we will debate via e-mail unless you would prefer that all those discussions be done in this thread. Let me know what is your preference.

I do sincerely appreciate your patience.

Your Christian Friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2000

Mr. Beerman:

Once again I appreciate your patience in allowing me the time to respond to your postdated 27 February 2000. Your kindness in recognizing, as you say, that I have a life and must work to sustain it, is greatly appreciated. I now attempt to complete, as promised, my review of the post described in my words above. I will now take up the final portion of your well-prepared and thoughtful arguments attempting to sustain and support your view that Christ, Our Lord, gave Peter supremacy over the other apostles and everyone else in the Church. The purpose of your argument is clear. It is your intent to use that argument, if proven to be true, as conclusive evidence that the pope has the right given to him by Christ to be the head of the Church today. Now, I intend to show that your contention that Christ gave Peter any primacy over the other apostles and the church universal is false. But just here I want to remark that even if such were true it would not follow logically, as a consequence, that the pope of todays Catholic Church has been given the same primacy. In fact, to prove what you are attempting to establish, you must show that Christ intended or instructed Peter to pass this primacy to a successor and that Christ did not intend for Peter to hold his apostleship throughout the eternal ages and therefore anyone attempting to take from Peter this primacy is not in fact usurping the very place of the only one that Christ ever intended to hold such a place in the Church. So you are still a long way from proving the primacy of any pope. Even if your arguments were true they do not establish that anyone other than Peter has been given primacy in the Church. That is an entirely different matter altogether. However, I will now quote your words and show from the scriptures that your contention that Christ gave primacy to Peter over the other apostles and the entire Church of Christ is false.

You begin your argument with these words:

Who is the head of the apostles, or are they all equal? There is evidence that Peter is given primacy.

As I promised in my previous post, I will begin by quoting the arguments made in the Vatican Council of 1870, where the Council was debating the doctrine of the Infallibility of the pope, made by an eminent Catholic Scholar that is diametrically apposed to your contention that there is evidence that Peter is given primacy over the other apostles and the Church. That eminent Catholic scholar was archbishop Strossmayer.

According to the well- known church historian, Phillip Schaff, there was strong opposition to this doctrine of infallibility of the pope and he records portions of a famous speech by archbishop Strossmayer in which he declared boldly:

I have set myself to study with the most serious attention the Old and New Testaments, and I have asked these venerable monuments of truth to make known to me if the holy pontiff, who presides here, is the true successor of St. Peter, vicar of Christ, and the infallible doctor of the Church. I find, in the apostolic days no question of a pope, successor to St. Peter, the vicar of Jesus Christ, any more than a Mohammed who did not then exist. Now, having read the whole New Testament, I declare before God, with my hand raised to that great crucifix, that I have found no trace of the papacy as it now exist at this moment.

And in concluding his speech he said:

I have established: (1) that Jesus gave to the apostles the same power that he gave to St. Peter. (2) That apostles never recognized in St. Peter the vicar of Jesus Christ (3) That Peter never thought of being pope, and never acted as if he were a pope. (4) That Councils of the first four centuries, while they recognized the high position, which the bishop of Rome occupied on account of Rome, only accorded to him the pre-eminence of honor, never of power and jurisdiction. (5) That the holy fathers in the famous passage, thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, never understood that the church was built on Peter (super petrum) but on the rock (super petram). That is, on the confession of the faith of the apostle. I conclude victoriously, with history, with reason, with logic, with good sense, and with Christian conscience, that Jesus Christ did not confer ANY SUPREMACY upon St. Peter, and that the bishops of Rome did not become sovereigns of the Church, but only by CONFISCATING one by one ALL THE RIGHTS OF THE EPISCOPATE.

Now, Mr. Beerman, archbishop Strossmayer has answered your arguments as if he knew in 1870 that you we going to make them! This man was a Catholic, Mr. Beerman, and he made a strong case against your notion of the primacy of Peter.

Now you have made arguments that are not new but rather classical Catholic mantras that have been answered over and over for ages even by some of your own scholars. Your first one is from Matthew 16:18 and I quote your words as follows:

He is the rock upon which the Church is built (Mt. 16:18) (the word in Aramaic for Peter and rock is the same, though the greek word for rock is different from Peter because the Greek word for rock is feminine and the name Peter is masculine.)

Now let me be clear that Mr. Beerman wants us to believe that Peter is not only the head of the church but that he is the very foundation on which the church is built! For he has said so in that he is using this passage to teach that the pope is the head of the church by claiming that Peter was given primacy over the other apostles and in his very words quoted above he tells us that He (meaning Peter not the Christ) is the rock upon which the church is built. Now here he is not only trying to make Peter the Head of the Church after agreeing that Christ is the only head of the Church but he makes Peter the very foundation of the church. He cannot escape the accusation that he is attempting to put Peter in the very place of Christ. In fact, he has by this very argument, without realizing that he has done so, given Peter Primacy not only over the other apostles but even over the Lord Jesus Christ!

It is good just here to read this account in full context and in parallel with the only other account of this teaching of Christ given by Mark. I recommend your doing just that. Read Matthew 16:13-21; Mark 8:27-30.

Now it is also important to know, that Marks gospel tells us of this same event without mentioning anything about the rock or the keys or the establishment of the church that are found in the account given by Matthew. He mentions the question concerning the identity of Christ that was put to the disciples and the answers given by men as opposed to the answer that was given by God through Peter. Men had varying opinions concerning the identity of Christ but God, through Peter, gave the correct answer. That answer was that Christ is the Son of God. Mark clearly shows us what the central matter under discussion was when Christ talked with his disciples in Caesarea Philippi. The central thought is Christ is the Son of God. Mark, who, incidentally, was a companion of Peter, gave this account. If this were the place where the primary subject under discussion was the Primacy of Peter then surely he would have been sure to make that clear. But he does not even mention the establishment of the church much less Peter as being the foundation of the church or the universal pope of the church. This neglect to mention the pope would be strange for one who had been a companion to the pope to just completely ignore, when discussing the events surrounding the appointment of the pope to even mention the pope or his appointment. You can rest assured that Mr. Beerman could not pass up the opportunity to show that this is the occasion when Peter became the head of the Church if he had written this account instead of Mark!

I only mention Marks account to show that he talked about the central theme of the same account that Matthew gives in greater detail. While Matthew does give us more information about the words spoken to Peter the central subject is the same. That subject is the fact that Christ is the Son of God.

It is interesting to me that Christ should come to a place like Caesarea Philippi to teach this great lesson. Now this city was a great city with a long history. It had formally been the ancient city of petra. It was a virtual impregnable fortress because it was founded on a rock and surrounded by rocks so that an army had great difficulties approaching and conquering it. It was here in this rock founded, rock surrounded city that Jesus the Rock of ages, the stone that was set at naught, the seif cornerstone, said to Peter, a small pebble, upon this rock I will build my Church. Now it does not take a rocet scientist to tell that Jesus was not talking about builting the church or establishing the eternal kngdom of God on this small pebbel of a man named Peter! But lets examine this passage to see what it really means.

Now at this place our Lord Jesus Christ asked his disciples, Who do men say that I am? The apostles gave him the answers that they had heard from their fellow men,  Some say thou art John the Baptist: Some Elias; some Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them,  but whom do you say that I am?

Now what on earth is our Lords point in asking these questions? What do these matters have to do with the primacy of Peter that Mr. Beerman is so eager to find in them? The answer is nothing! Absolutely nothing! These verses are about the identity of Christ as the Son of God rather than the supremacy of Peter as the pope. The question is not what of Peter and his place in the church? rather it is who is Christ. The answer to the question who is Christ? is the theme of these verses and to neglect this and treat this verse as if it is completely isolated from our Lords question and its answer is a sure way to reach a false conclusion.

It is clear that this question concerning the identity of Christ as the Son of God is connected to all that happens afterwards in this passage. To disconnect the point made by Christ concerning the fact that he is the Son of God from the things that he says about the foundation upon which the church would be built by Him is the reason of Mr. Beermans misunderstanding this passage. Christ asked the question and Peter gives the answer that God had revealed to him. Peter received an inspired answer. It is not the question that is central to the passage but the answer to the question. It is not Peter and his primacy that is under discussion but Christ and his identity as the Son of God. This entire passage is dealing with that one great fact. And the Catholics come along, as our friend Mr. Beerman has done- looking for a pope because they already have one and need to justify it- and make it seem that this passage is about PETER. This entire context is about Christ and the fact that he is the Son of God instead of the primacy of Peter as the pope over the universal church. Peter plays the subordinate part to Christ of being one to whom God had revealed the truth that Christ was the Son of God. This scripture is dealing with the deity of Christ not the primacy of Peter. The subject under discussion is Christ and to make it suddenly shift from its context to discussing Peter is a sad commentary on our Mr. Beermans hermeneutical skills. He his saying to us,  God forbid that we should see the Son of God in these scriptures for we need a pope and we are looking for a pope and we will find a pope even if we must push the Lord Jesus Christ the son of God completely out of this picture so that anyone reading these verses will immediately think of the pope and most likely never again see the son of God which these verses were intended to show us! What a shame indeed that he would so twist the scriptures! Yes, now Mr. Beerman has found his pope! Now he is happy but does it ever cross his mind that in finding his pope he has lost complete sight of the Son of God his savior?

Now I mention all of this about the context because Mr. Beerman seems to think that because he would shift languages from the Greek to the Aramaic that he has solved the problem that the Catholics, including Mr. Beerman, have been completely unable to answer. I will give this argument again because it is irrefutable and he has admitted that it is truthfulness in the words that he has placed in parenthesis as follows:

(the word in Aramaic for Peter and rock is the same, though the greek word for rock is different from Peter because the Greek word for rock is feminine and the name Peter is masculine.)

Yes, Mr. Beerman, in the Greek the word Peter is petros, a person, masculine, while the word rock is petra, is feminine and refers not to person but to the declaration of Christs deity which he had just uttered-Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God.

Using Peters name and making a play upon words, Jesus said to Peter, you are petros, and upon this petra I will build my Church. Christ as the Son of God, the truth that Peter had just confessed, was the foundation upon which Christ would build the church. He meant that Peter had seen the basic, essential truth concerning His person upon which the church would be founded.

And this is true as our friend, Mr. Beerman, admits but he thinks that the Aramaic word for Peter and Rock is the same as if this makes all the difference! Now, we all know that different languages have different ways to accomplish the same effect. The Greek language makes it clear that the truth that Christ is the Son of God is the rock that Christ is referring to by changing gender and thus changing the subject. But it has never crossed his mind that the Aramaic language accomplishes the same effect with its own rules of Grammar and syntax which are without doubt very different than the Greek rules? Does he seriously think that the only way for any language to accomplish this change of subject is by changing the form of the words? Does he seriously expect the Aramaic Language to follow the Greek rules of Grammar? There are without doubt a number of ways for various languages to indicate the subject of a sentence. In the Greek of this passage the way this change of subject is indicated is by changing the gender from the masculine petros of person to the feminine Petra not of person. But the same results could be accomplished in another language, such as Aramaic, without changing the form of the words at all. Some languages indicate such changes not by modifying the forms or gender of the words but rather by the syntax or the arrangement of the words in their context. Aramaic is a language capable of doing such. So it is natural that the words would be the same in the Aramaic but such does not prove that the Aramaic original had a different meaning from the Greek translation of it.

Mr. Beerman has not shown from any reliable Aramaic grammar that this passage, according to the rules of Grammar in the Aramaic language, requires that this passage be translated to suit his erroneous notion that Peter is the foundation upon which the church was built. He cannot show that such is the case and I challenge him to do so. Come in here, Mr. Beerman, and show us from reputable Aramaic Grammars that the Greeks should have translated this passage differently. The fact is, however, that the interaction or arrangement of these words in their context required those who translated these passages into Greek to use this Greek change in form from masculine petros to feminine petra to obtain the same result in their language.

But Mr. Beerman says they were wrong. He acts as if they were such neophytes in the Aramaic language as to have failed to recognize that these words did not change form in Aramaic therefore they should have translated into Greek without any indication of change of subject. But it does not appear to dawn upon him that these scholars were not such neophytes at all but rather they could tell that the subject changed in Aramaic by using Aramaic rules of grammar to determine it and felt a strong conviction that they would have to indicate this change of subject in the Greek by using petros masculine of Person in opposition to the feminine petra to indicate the shift they saw in the Aramaic which used different grammatical devices to achieve that result. But, they just have to be wrong because their translation does not favor Mr. Beermans desperate search for a pope in the New Testament.

In fact, to one who reads this in Aramaic the point is even more certain that it is Christ as the Son of God who is the foundation of the Church not Peter a mere man and a vacillating and weak one at that. If you want to discuss the Aramaic of this passage further, Mr. Beerman, I recommend that you find some Aramaic Grammars and lexicons and that we discuss in detail just how that language uses syntax (Placing same words in different positions) to change from one subject to another in a sentence. It will be boring for our readers, but we can do it since you seem to want your entire case concerning the meaning of this verse to hinge upon your understanding of Aramaic. But the Greek translators did not hold a similar opinion with you for they used the Greek method of changing subjects when they translated from the Aramaic and I can assure you that they had very good Aramaic grammatical and contextual reasons to do so.

For that reason I have shown from the context of this passage in English that the central theme is the identity of Christ as the very Son of God and that therefore the primacy of Peter is completely out of place in such a context.

Now we must also realize that this interpretation of Matthew 16:18 that Christ as the Son of God is the ROCK or foundation on which the Church is built agrees with the rest of the word of God on this subject. Christ is repeatedly called a rock. About thirty four times in the Old Testament God is called a rock or the rock of Israel. It was a designation of God. In these messianic passages Christ is called the rock on which we should believe.  Then he shall become a sanctuary; But to both the houses of Israel, a stone to strike and a rock to stumble over. (Isa. 8:14). Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold I lay in Zion, a stone, a tested stone, a costly cornerstone, for the foundation, firmly placed. He who believes in it shall not be disturbed. (Isa. 28:16).  The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone. (Ps. 118:22). These passages are quoted in the New Testament and for that reason Christ is called a rock several times. It designates him as divine. It was a designation of God in the Old Testament. For that reason every Jew, knowing the Old Testament would refuse such a designation to Peter or anyone else. In saying,  upon this rock I will build my Church, Christ was referring to something divine not human. It was the divine truth that Christ was the Son of God that Peter and the other apostles would have clearly understood him to be referring. As Jews they would have refused this designation as applying to Peter. Christ is the Rock and we are living stones built upon him.  Being built upon the foundation of the apostles (all of them not just Peter) and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone; in whom each several building, fitly framed together groweth up into a holy temple in the Lord. (Eph. 2:20,21). Peter did not recognize nor did he speak of himself as being the rock or foundation of the church as does Mr. Beerman. He quoted these Old Testament messianic passages and applied them to Christ as the foundation of the Church.  Unto who coming, a living stone, rejected indeed of men, but with God elect and precious, ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Because it is contained in scripture, behold I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on Him shall not be put to shame. For you therefore that believe is the preciousness: But for such as disbelieve, the stone which the builders rejected was made the head of the corner; and a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense; (1Peter 2:4-8). Paul even tells us that the rock from which the Israelites drank typified Christ (1Cor. 10:4). Now we know that there is only one foundation of the Church and that foundation is Christ, not Peter. For Paul plainly says,  For other foundation can NO MAN lay than that which is laid which is Jesus Christ. (1Cor.3: 11). Now listen closely to what Paul by inspiration said. And see how it conflicts directly with Mr. Beermans interpretation of Matthew 16:18. The Apostle Paul tells us that Jesus Christ is the foundation. He also makes it clear that no one else can lay a different foundation. That means that Peter cannot be the foundation of the Church. Since Jesus is the foundation, according to the apostle Paul, then Peter cannot be the rock on which the church was built as Mr. Beerman wants us to believe.

Mr. Beerman, I must stop writing now because I must get some sleep because I will get up early for work in the morning. I must finish dealing with your arguments tomorrow. I can only work on this a few hours at a time.

I do pray for you my friend.

Your Christian friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2000

Thanks for your prayers. I need all I can get.

Don't forget to discuss the meaning of the handing over of the keys to Peter and the significance of "binding and loosing."

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2000

Mr. Beerman:

I appreciate your reminder that I not forget your argument concerning the "keys" and the "binding and loosing". I think that I have shown in my previous post that I have absolutely no intention of ignoring any of your arguments. I have not ignored any in the post to which I am responding up to this point. I am sure that you cannot be seriously thinking that I would deliberately fail to respond to any of your arguments. You have been good enough to present them for our consideration and I am aware of the labor involved in such things and would consider it extremely disrespectful toward you to not give diligence and serious consideration to your work. I only hope that you will treat my response to you with the same care and not fail, as you have already done in your initial response to my post, to notice all of the answers and arguments that I have presented.

I also want to ask you to not forget to contact me via e-mail or in this thread, as you choose, to discuss our upcoming debate and let's settle on the propositions to be discussed, the guidelines to be followed and agree on the format and other significant details so that after you have responded to my arguments we can begin an organized discussion of these important matters.

I shall now continue my response to your post dated 27 February 2000. I want to begin by reminding everyone of the type of "primacy" that you are attempting to justify with your arguments. Now we will show from the scriptures that Peter had no "primacy" over the other apostles but was rather an equal with them in the same work. Nevertheless, I want to make it clear that even if one could establish that Peter had "primacy" over the rest of the apostles it would be a "primacy" of a completely different sort than that which Mr. Beerman, as a Catholic, is trying to Justify for the pope of the Roman Catholic Church. Now if he wishes to disagree with the Catholic Church on these things we will be glad to have him do so. But up to this point he has not disagreed with them at all. Let me show you again just what it is that Mr. Beerman is trying to justify with his erroneous arguments concerning the "primacy" of Peter.

Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical, "The Reunion of Christendom" (1885), declared that the pope holds "upon this earth the place of God Almighty."

You see from this that the type of "primacy" of Peter that Mr. Beerman is ultimately hoping to get us to accept is not just a "primacy over the other apostles" but a "primacy" that puts him in the very "place of God Almighty" on this earth. Now, he cannot even prove that Peter had "primacy" over the other apostles much less convince the thoughtful and discerning that Peter held the "place of God" on this earth which the Catholics believe the pope to hold! Now I know that Mr. Beerman wants to deny that Catholics believe any such thing but the above quote from one of their popes shows that such is exactly what they believe and teach.

But just in case he wants to say that this was only the opinion of a pope who "does sin and make mistakes" in an encyclical which he wrote when he was not speaking "cathedra" or using his powers of infallibility, I want you to know that the Catholics have not disagreed with this pope and Mr. Beerman has not disagreed with the Catholic position yet. He even denied that Catholics teach that the pope takes the place of Christ on the earth. But that the Catholic Church does, in fact, teach that the pope has so much "primacy" that he is in fact nothing less than "God Himself on earth" can be seen by all who study the New York Catechism, which I now quote from as follows:

"The pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth...By divine right the pope has supreme and full power in faith and morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God Himself on earth."

Now this is the very kind of "primacy" that Mr. Beerman is hoping to get us all to accept concerning Peter. Because he is making these arguments in an attempt to get us to accept the Catholic idea of a pope that has received this type of "primacy" in succession from the very apostle Peter. If by chance anyone wants to think that this is just the ranting of a "sinful" pope and the confused notions of those who wrote the New York Catechism let me show you a picture of the coronation of a pope.

When the triple crown is placed on the head of a new pope at his "coronation" ceremony the ritual prescribes the following declaration by the officiating cardinal:

"Receive the tiara adorned with three crowns, and know that thou art the father of Princes and Kings, Ruler of the World, the Vicar of our saviour Jesus Christ..." (National Catholic Almanac).

Now, Mr. Beerman has asked me not to forget about the "keys" and the "binding and loosing" and he need not worry for I will not forget them. I fully intend to show that they do not grant to Peter, or any other human being on this earth, a "triple crown" and the place of Christ on this earth.

I am attempting to make it clear, that we are not talking here about a simple "father" over his house as Mr. Beerman trys to explain it to us. No we are talking about a person who claims that he has found that Peter is supreme over the other apostles and this fact means that the pope is in the "place of God Almighty". He has not just found "rocks" to indicate that Peter was the foundation of the church and "keys" that indicate that Peter had supreme authority in the church but he has found a "triple crown" that makes the pope "God Almighty on earth".

This is the teaching of the Catholic church. It is also the practice of the Catholic church to worship this pope as if he were God on earth as I have shown in my previous post but I want you to see an actual coronation of a pope so that we can all see what Mr. Beerman and his catholic friends get from his erroneous arguments concerning the "primacy" of Peter. I want you to see the ultimate result of his reasoning and look into the word of God and see if you can find anything like it! The scriptures to which he refers certainly do not teach that Peter had any "primacy" and they surely do not teach that the pope is "God Almighty on this earth". He has tried to deny that this is his belief. If it is then he should come in here and stand right beside us and condemn those Catholics who wrote the New York Catechism and the pope Leo XIII who said that the pope holds on this earth, "the place of God Almighty". Will you come in here Mr. Beerman and do as you have promised and condemn this pope and the New York Catechism and any and all Catholics of our present day who hold a similar view of the pope? I hope so.

But let us take a look at the coronation of the pope. In November, 1958, the ritual of coronation of pope John XXIII was presented to some fifty thousand persons in Rome and to millions more by television. One News source described the coronation spectacle in part as follows:

"...Swiss guards in polished breastplates and scarlet-and-gold uniforms, and a scarlet-robed ecclesiastic carrying the pontifical tiara. Chaplains in violet soutanes, bishops in white mitres and robes decorated with silver; ecclesiastics in scarlet capes, and the College of Cardinals in cream colored vestments heavy with gold embroidery, followed each other in measured procession. Finally, amid renewed shouts of enthusiasm, the pope was carried in by twelve bearers, seated in the gestatorial chair beneath a richly embroidered canopy. The pontiff wore gem-studded mitre and the ritual falda. To the right and left were members of the noble and Palatine guard in gala uniforms."

Any Christian would be appalled at such man made religious display. I was only six years old when the above coronation occurred but while in the Navy I went to Rome and was ordered to serve as the officer- in-charge of a group of sailors on a trip to the Vatican. There I saw something similar to the following account of a public appearance of the pope in St. Peters basilica in Rome:

"First, soldier guards with rifles enter-perhaps fifty of them, then the papal officials. Then borne by twelve men on their shoulders, a huge chair on which the pope sits. He has a white scull cap and is dressed in white robes. We see the light flash on the diamond of his crucifix. Twenty thousand people shout, 'Viva il Papal!' 'long live the pope!' He begins to salute the people genially on all sides, scattering his blessings with great liberality. He is carried through the full length of the great church to the great alter and steps from his chair to a red throne on a platform raised above the heads of the people."

"The people are wild with enthusiasm. They cheer and raise their children to see his face. As one looks about at the beaming faces, one wonders if the participants understand the difference between latria and dulia-one permits devotion to a holy thing, and the other, devotion due only to God. We fear the devotion given him is the type one would give only to his God!..."

"As he mounts his chair to be borne out again on the shoulders of 12 men dressed in red, the children cry and women plead not to be crushed. The pope is carried out, scattering his greetings all about him. As he is about to pass the curtain, he rises and again gives the apostolic blessing. The vast crowd pours out into the Piazza San Pietro, having seen a man who to most of them, stands in the place of God."

How strikingly different is the simple picture of the man Peter in the New Testament. He most certainly did not have any "primacy", as we shall show, but it is self evident that he had not this kind of supremacy over his fellowmen!

How different this is from our Lord Jesus Christ who walked seventy miles, one way, to be baptized at the baptism of John. In fact, He walked to every place he went. Even when He was being lead away to be crucified He walked and He carried His own cross until he stumbled and the Roman soldiers ordered Symeon of Cyrene, the only man to ever carry the Lord's burden, to bear it for him. And this pope will not even walk the length of a church building without being carried by twelve bearers! This pomp, this ostentation, this earthly glory, the lights, the ceremony, all the wealth imaginable are employed to enhance the grandeur of an institution which is in every sense the opposite of the simple church of the New Testament! I do wonder if the pope has ever read the Bible! Has he ever read the following passage?

"Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of man, he humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on the cross. Therefore also God highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him THE NAME WHICH IS ABOVE EVERY NAME, That at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE SHOULD BOW, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that CHRIST IS LORD, to the glory of God the father." Philippians 2:5-11.

Having said all of this I must stop and go to do some things with my family. I will return later to take up the "keys" that Mr. Beerman is afraid that I will forget. I completely understand your concern, Mr. Beerman, my wife seems to have the same fear because every time I leave the house she reminds me to not forget my keys. I appreciate her for doing so. I also appreciate your helping me to remember these important "keys" as well.

I pray for us all that we can see our Lord Jesus Christ and that He will hasten the day when "every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that CHRIST is Lord to the glory of God the father" (Phil. 2:11).

Your Christian friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2000

(I wonder if these keys fit a '57 Chevy?)

-- Anonymous, March 05, 2000

Mr. Beerman:

You have asked and since I have been gradually taking each of your arguments up in the order in which you have presented them we will now consider your argument concerning the fact that Peter was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven. I will begin by quoting your words and the argument as you have stated it as follows:

"He receives the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Mt. 16:19) which were previously mentioned in Is. 22:22 referring to David holding the keys to Jerusalem. Jesus is the Son of David and holds the keys to the new Jerusalem (Rev. 3:7) also known as heaven. These are the keys he gives to Peter. If that is not giving him authority then I don't know what is. Jesus actually gives him the power to bind and loosen. What he declares bound on earth is bound in heaven and what he declares loose is loosed in heaven."

There is absolutely no question that Jesus, in this passage, promised to give unto Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven with these words: " And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose shall be loosed in heaven." Matthew 16:19. You have also been good enough to quote the appropriate passages that show that Christ, in prophecy, is said to have the keys of the house of David. I will quote this verse for all to see: " And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open and none shall shut; and he shall shut and none shall open" Isaiah 22:22. Then in the book of Revelation, some 65 years after Christ gave keys to Peter, we are told that Christ still has the key of David that is prophesied by Isaiah with these words, " And to the Angel of the Church in Philadelphia write; these things saith he that is Holy, he that is true, he that hath the Key of David, He that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth." Revelation 3:7.

Now, it should be obvious, that if The key of David prophesied by Isaiah and described by the Apostle John in the Revelation, are the keys that Christ gave to Peter, then He only allowed Peter to use the keys temporarily for in Revelation 3:7, long after Peter had died Christ still has possession of the keys. Which would give the Catholics some problem with their "succession" theory. Now wouldn't it?

But the key of David may not be the keys that Peter was given after all. Jesus had used this language concerning keys in other places that may help us all to come to a better understanding of these things. Jesus used this language about "opening and shutting" in reference to the scribes and Pharisees indicating that they had this same power, for he says, " But woe unto you scribes Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye shut the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye enter not in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering in to enter." (Matt. 23:13). He also said, " The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: all things therefore whatsoever they bid you, these do and observe: but do not do ye after their works; for they say and do not. Yea, they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be born, and lay them on men's shoulders: but they themselves will not move them with their finger." Then Jesus said, "woe unto you Lawyers! For ye took away the key of knowledge: ye enter not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered" Here the key of knowledge of the way of salvation was in the hands of the Pharisees in that they had the law of Moses in their possession, and were therefore the custodians of the word of God. In that sense they possessed the key to the kingdom of heaven. They took away that key in that they fail to proclaim the word of God. They were not entering into the kingdom of heaven themselves and they were hindering those who wanted to enter. Therefore it was these "keys" that Christ was going to give to Peter in that Peter was going to be the one to use the DECLARATORY POWER that was given to him to Preach the gospel first to the Jews and then first to the Gentiles and thus open the doors of the kingdom to every man living for ever more with that blessed key called the gospel which was given to the rest of the apostles including Paul and was passed down to every Christian through their word. There is nothing in any of this that gives Peter anything other than the right to announce, not decide, the terms that the Christ through the Holy Spirit gave Him on which God would grant salvation. He was not given an absolute power to admit or to exclude from the kingdom of heaven. Only God can do that and he never delegates that authority to any men.

It is also important to notice just here that Jesus said to Peter, "Blessed art thou Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood hath not reveal this unto thee but my father which is in heaven". Now with these words he pointed out that Peter did not come up with this correct answer, "Thou art the Christ the son of the living God", on his own. It was revealed unto him. It was indeed the process of inspiration that had happed to Peter and he was saying that this is exactly what he would have. The "key" to the Kingdom of heaven was the inspired word of God and Christ was telling Peter that he was going to give these "Keys" to him. He told Peter and the rest of the apostles that he would send the Holy Spirit to Guide them into all truth. ( John 16:13; John 14:26). THe word of God would be given to them in just this way and they would theyfore become, what the Pharisee's had been. They would all become the custodians of the very word of God and in this they would have the "Keys of the kingdom of heaven" so that whatsoever they would bind on earth would be bound in heaven and whatsoever they would loose on earth would be loosed in heaven. For the word of God that they would receive would come from God through Christ through the Holy Spirit to the apostles. Now that this power of binding and loosing was given to the other apostles is clear from Matthew 18:1, 18 which I will discuss later. But Peter was given the privilege to be the first one to use these "keys" to open the door of the Kingdom of heaven to the Jews one the day of Pentecost ( Acts 2) and later to the gentiles at the house of Cornelius ( Acts 10). This is the very gist of the meaning of the Keys. The Keys that Mr. Beerman is talking about never left the hands of Christ and are still in His posession according to Revelation 3:7. So Peter did not receive those keys and the pope never had them!

However, be all of this as it may, there are some significant facts that our friend, Mr. Beerman overlooks. First of all he assumes that Peter is the only one to receive this power of loosing and binding. In fact, in the same book of Matthew only two chapters away from this one, Jesus says to the other disciples, "At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, who shall be the greatest in the Kingdom of heaven? ...Verily I say unto you, that whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Matthew 18:1,18. And in the Book of John Jesus said again to ALL of the apostles, including Peter, " Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them. Whosoever sins ye retain, they are retained." John 20:22. Both of these passages are simply a restatement of the exact words that Christ said to Peter. Therefore All of the apostles had this same power of Binding and loosing and Peter therefore had absolutely no "primacy" over the other apostles whatsoever in this matter.

Then, Jesus also said to ALL of the apostles, "In the regeneration, when the son of man shall sit upon the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matthew 19:28). Now I want Mr. Beerman to notice that there is a throne here for each of the apostles indicating that they are all equal in every regard and that the Throne of Christ Glory is higher than them all! It should be clear to all that there is no superiority given to Peter in these passages. In fact, when Mr. Beerman says concerning binding and loosing, "If that is not giving him authority then I don't know what is. Jesus actually gives him the power to bind and loosen. What he declares bound on earth is bound in heaven and what he declares loose is loosed in heaven." To this we say that he did give power or authority to Peter but we have shown that the exact same power was given to the other apostles. So where is the "primacy of Peter" if all of the apostles had the same power?

Though Peter did not have any authority or power above what the other apostles had nevertheless, Peter was given a special privilege of opening the doors of the Kingdom of heaven for the first time to the Jews on Pentecost (Acts 2) And He opened to doors of the kingdom of heaven to the Gentiles in Acts 10:43-43 at conversion of the household of Cornelieus. Now it may be helpful just he to point out the teaching of the scriptures concerning the Kingdom of heaven. In Daniel 2:44 Daniel prophesied that in the "days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed". Without going into great detail it does not take much to realize that these kings were the Roman kings. Then, in the New Testament came John the Baptist preaching, "Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" and he preached a Baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins. He was preparing the way for the king. Then Jesus said," There be some standing here that shall not taste of death until they death until they see the kingdom of God come with power" Mark9:1. Then Jesus told his the apostles before he ascended into the heavens, " But ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: Ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and unto the utmost part of the earth" Acts 1:8. Therefore the kingdom was going to come, in the lifetime of those present and it would come with power. In other words the Kingdom of heaven would come when the power came. Then in the 2nd chapter of Acts, on the very day of Pentecost Power came. (Acts 2:1-4). Thus on that day, we are told that " Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up His voice..." Acts 2:14. Notice that Peter stood up with the eleven. He was given the privilege of exercising his declaratory power to announce conditions of salvation and thus the entrance into the kingdom of God as Christ had promised. Here by preaching the gospel he used these keys of knowledge given by Christ through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to open the door to the kingdom of God by preaching the first gospel sermon. But God knew that men like Mr. Beerman might draw the conclusion that Peter had some "primacy over the other apostles" so he had all of them preaching at the same time on that day. Notice acts 2:6 says and they heard "them speaking" and that Peter "standing up with the eleven" (Acts 2:14) Preached the first gospel sermon and open the doors of the kingdom of heaven to men.

Being the first to do something does not always give one any "position" of primacy over others. It merely gives them a privilege that others did not enjoy. It does not constitute a gift of authority over equals. I was a Navy man and on occasion one officer of the same rank may instruct his peers first but no one concluded from his being the "first to speak" that he held any authority over the rest.

After this day the kingdom of God is spoken of as being in existence. It is not yet to come it is here in reality and Peter had opened the door that the Pharisees had shut by denying men the truth. Then, there was another miraculous occasion when the door of the kingdom was opened to the gentiles and Peter was there to open the door using the same gospel that he had taught on the day of Pentecost. But to draw the conclusion from all of this that Jesus gave Peter the keys to open the door of the kingdom on the day of Pentecost and to the gentiles at the house of Cornelius meant that he had power over the other apostles is patently false. For all of the other apostles had the same powers though they did not have the wonderful privilege of being the first to open the doors of the kingdom to Jew and gentile alike. Peter's powers were declaratory instead of dictatorial over his fellow Christians. He spoke what Christ, through the Holy Spirit told him to speak. The doors to the kingdom of heaven have been open to all who will obey the gospel of Christ from that time until now. Since Peter announced the terms of salvation to Jew and gentile they have remained revealed to us in his words and will be used by all Christians throughout eternity to "open the doors of the kingdom" to all who will hear and obey the gospel. (Romans 1:16; 1Cor. 1:18; Acts 2:38,39; 2 Thess. 1:8-11). For this reason Christ told the apostles, "go ye therefore and teach all nation baptizing them in the name of the father, the son, and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe ALL things that I have commanded you. And lo I will be with you always even to the end of the world." Matt. 28;19,20.

SO the power of "binding and loosing" were given to all of the apostles and the privilege of announcing for the first time the knowledge of the terms of salvation through the gospel of Christ was given to Peter and this was the "keys" of the kingdom of heaven. He open the doors and they remain open for all who will enter through obedience to the gospel. All who will not submit to the gospel will be excluded. ( 2 Thess.1:5-11). But the Keys of David remain in the hands of Christ (Rev. 3:7) for he did not give them to Peter. Since all of the apostles had the same power of binding and loosing it follows that Peter had no "primacy" among the apostles in this matter.

This should all be sufficient to make it clear to the candid that this verse does not grant any primacy to Peter in the least. Now we can show other evidence but we will save that until after I have finished answering Mr. Beerman's arguments. After having done that I have quite a few things with which we will conclude my response. But this is enough for now.

I do continue to pray fervently for you Mr. Beerman for I am indeed your friend.

Your Christian friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

E. Lee Saffold,

I think you are finally starting to see what I am saying. Just as Peter had no dictatorial power to "decide" Church teaching, only to speak what Christ inspired him to speak, so also the pope has no dictatorial power to decide Church teaching but he must always maintain the original revelation of Christ. The respect we show to the pope, therefore, is actually being shown to Christ, because the pope's words come from Christ.

-- Anonymous, March 08, 2000

Mr. Beerman:

All I can see from these words is that you have forgotten what it is you are saying. You have said that the pope IS the head of the Church and that he "speaks AS the head of the Church". We are not discussing who has the power to decide church teaching. We are discussing your affirmation that the pope "speaks AS the head of the church." WE are discussing whether Peter had primacy over the other apostles. If you wish to affirm that the pope does not have "dictatorial" powers over church then write out your proposition, define it and agree to defend it. If you mean by this that he does not have dictatorial powers over the Roman Catholic Church I will deny it. For he has no powers over the Church of Christ, LEST OF ALL DICTATORIAL POWERS. For he has absolutely NO power over the church of which Christ, and Christ alone is the head.

You have twice now tried to change your words to hide the fact that what you have actually said is much closer to what the Catholic Church teaches. You have said that the pope "speaks as the head of the Church". If you think that you can convince anyone that the "pope does not have any dictatorial power to decide church teaching" among Roman Catholics" you will find this to be as difficult as your original proposition that he speaks "AS the head of the church".

With these words of yours, Mr. Beerman, you demonstrate rather that you are finally starting to see what we are saying that Peter had no authority over the other apostles in the church. For you are now trying to modify your position to fit more closely to what the word of God teaches in an attempt to make it appear that such was your original contention after all and that the Catholic Church has long since taught such things. But do not forget Mr. Beerman that your original affirmation was that the pope speaks "as the head of the church". We are discussing that proposition right now. As a part of that discussion we have come to discuss the "primacy" of Peter by which you mean the "Supremacy" of Peter over the other apostles.

So let us discuss one affirmation at the time. I see very clearly what you are saying. I have seen it from the beginning, Mr. Beerman. You are saying that the pope is the head of the Church and that he speaks "as the head of the church". You are teaching that the pope is the head of the church of Christ. I deny that he is the head of the church. I deny that he speaks "as the head of the church. I deny that he has any authority in the Church of Christ. Now these are the things I have been trying to get you to draw up formal propositions clearly defined. But you do not want to clearly define your position do you? You are avoiding any discussion with me about these propositions and rules of our debate etc.

Now this is just the reason that I want us to have an organized discussion with written propositions so that you cannot try to slip out from under the mounting pressure of arguments that are contrary to your teaching without giving up your stated and defined proposition.

You seem to be avoiding defining your propositions that you affirm because you have yet to even attempt to discuss the matter. I ask you again to get with me on the propositions for our formal debate. We can discuss as many as you like but I insist that you write them out, sign them, and defend them so that I can hold you to you word and you are not able to try to shift attention away from your original affirmation.

Then you say:

"The respect we show to the pope, therefore, is actually being shown to Christ, because the pope's words come from Christ."

You must be referring to the "kissing of the pope's feet" as described by the Catholic Encyclopedia.

"The kissing of the pope's foot-the characteristic act of reverence by which all the faithful do honor to him as the Vicar of Christ-is found as early as the eighth century." (Catholic Enc. XII, P. 270).

Because when you say "we" you are not talking about Christians but rather you are talking about Roman Catholics. For we do not "kiss the pope's feet". But remember that the Catholics use this word "respect" when they know that they are talking to a group of people that are offended by the word "worship". But their true teaching is seen in this quote that I have given:

"But the supreme teacher in the Church is the Roman PONTIF. Union of minds, therefore, requires together with a perfect accord in one faith, complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff AS UNTO GOD HIMSELF". (Great Encyclical Letters, p. 193).

Catholics submit to the pope "AS TO GOD HIMSELF". They do not show respect to Christ through the pope. They submit to him "AS TO GOD HIMSELF". Mr. Beerman, none of us Christians will ever submit to the pope at all much less "AS TO GOD HIMSELF".

Now there you go again Mr. Beerman, putting the pope in the "place of Christ". Instead of worshiping the Christ directly Mr. Beerman has us worshipping the pope in the "place of Christ" though he earlier tried to tell us that Catholics do not put the "pope in the place of Christ". I guess that the abundant evidence that we have supplied has convinced him that it is true after all that the Catholics do, in fact, put the pope in the very place of Christ. Why can't we just show respect to Christ directly, Mr. Beerman, instead of taking the respect and honor due to Christ, otherwise known as worship, and showing it to a mere man. To do such a thing is pure idolatry! But you at least concede the point that the Catholics do, in fact, put the pope in the place of Christ. This is the very thing that the scriptures condemn, Mr. Beerman. Then you assert but do not prove that the pope's word's come from Christ. Now this is purely false doctrine. The pope's words do not come from Christ. Now if you want to affirm this then contact me and we will draw up a proposition stated in your words that you are willing to define and defend and I will deny that the pope's words come from Christ. But again I remind you of the fact that you have completely avoided any discussions about these propositions and our debating them individually and in order so that our discussion might be profitable to all. So contact me about these matters if you really are willing to debate these subjects.

Your Christian friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 08, 2000

E. Lee Saffold,

You are presuming that it is a contradiction to say that Jesus is head of the Church and the pope is the head of the church in another way. I will affirm that the pope is head of the Church *in a certain sense*. That is, he is the visible head of the visible Church that we can see here on earth. ( I know there may be another argument whether the Church Christ established on earth is visible or invisible, but I would argue that if it is indeed a "body" then it must be visible.)

If the Church is a hierarchy in the sense that there are various levels to it, as the Scriptures and Church fathers maintain, then who is in the position of primacy in this hierarchy? The bishop of Rome. That is what I am saying.

Here's an analogy that may help explain it. See 1 Cor. 11:3. "The head of every man is Christ." If someone were to ask, "What's that sitting on his shoulders?" one might answer, "well, we can't call it his head because Christ alone is the head of every man. In fact, if you try to call it his head, we could say that you are worshiping his head as God because you are trying to put his head in the place of Christ, who is the only head of man as Scripture clearly states."

I'm not denying that Christ is *the* head of the Church on heaven and earth. But the pope can also be considered as head in the same sense that what is on a man's shoulders can be called his "head." The pope and Christ are not the "head" in the same sense. Priority obviously belongs to Christ in an infinite sense.

Consider another analogy: At times we ask our friends to pray for us, and we pray for them. Our prayers ask God for special help for one another. When we pray in this way, what are we doing? We are acting as mediators, as go-betweens. We are approaching God on someone else's behalf. Does this contradict Paul's statement that Christ is the one mediator (1 Tim. 2:5)? No, because our mediatorship is entirely secondary to his and depends on his. He is the only God-man, the only person who himself is a bridge between God and man, but interceding for another person does not interfere with this mediatorship. In fact, in the four verses immediately before 1 Timothy 2:5, Paul commands Christians to pray for others. Christ could have established his mediatorship in any way he chose, but he chose to have us participate when he himself commanded us to pray for one another (Matt. 5:44, 1 Tim. 2:14, Rom. 15:30, Acts 12:5). So, just as there can be secondary mediators and a primary one, there can be a secondary foundation and a primary one.

The pope only gets his authority from Christ. The only reason people show reverence and respect for the pope is because he is speaking, not his own words, but the words of Christ, just as Peter did. This position of authority does not go with the man, it goes with the office, so that whoever is pope at the time has this authority which was given by Christ. If the pope should ever resign, he would cease to have that authority and it would pass on to the next man to hold the office of the Bishop of Rome.

You said,

He did not say "I have authority in heaven and I have recognized Peter as the POPE and he has authority in my place on the earth"!

Actually, Jesus did say that, though not in those exact words. See Matthew 16:18-20. This passage deals with the divinity of Christ *and* the primacy of Peter. The pope does not have authority instead of Christ but because of Christ. The words of the pope are the same as the words of Christ. How do we know that? We get an idea from what preceded this passage. Peter is the one who knew that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God. Jesus said mere flesh and blood did not reveal this to him, but the heavenly Father. So here Peter is speaking authoritatively because he is being inspired by God the Father. next verse--"and so" I say to you, you are Peter and upon this rock I build my church. The words for Peter and rock are synonymous. How do we know this?

1. Some argue that the name Peter (petros) means pebble whereas the word rock (petra) means a massive stone. However, in first century Greek the words petros and petra were synonyms. They had previously possessed the meanings of "small stone" and "large rock" in some early Greek poetry, but by the first century this distinction was gone, as even Protestant Bible scholars admit (see D. A. Carson's remarks on this passage in the Expositor's Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books]). The word petra cannot be given to Peter as a name because it is feminine in gender and Peter is a man, so the name given to him means the same thing in the masculine gender--petros.

2. There is no evidence of anyone having the name "rock" in the Old Testament other than the one example where Abraham is called rock (Isaiah 51:1-2). That term is usually reserved for God. Yet there has to be some reason why the Lord changed Simon's name to Rock. The context of the passage in Matthew clearly shows that it is because Jesus will build his church on this Rock.

3. Some argue that "this rock" upon which the Church is built is Peter's profession of faith or even Christ himself. The word "this" (taute) means "this very" and most likely refers to the nearest antecedent, that is Peter. If you want it to be referring to his profession of faith or Christ himself you have to go back two sentences. It certainly seems to be forcing an interpretation that is opposed to the one that seems obvious to one who approaches this passage without preconceived ideas. That is, that the rock refers to Peter whose name means rock, both in Aramaic and in Greek. By the way, the Aramaic word for pebble is evna, the word in Aramaic for large massive stone is kepha, and that is the name of Peter, see John 1:42. The Greek word at the time the bible was written for small pebble is lithos, not petros, so why didn't Matthew use that word to make himself more clear if that is what he intended?

on to Matthew 16:22-23. Jesus says to Peter, " You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do." When Peter speaks on his own and not authoritatively speaking as head of the apostles, (Peter pulled Jesus aside), he is fallible. So when does Peter and therefore the pope speak infallibly? Only when inspired to do so by the Holy Spirit, that is when speaking as the head of the apostolic college, that is, the college of bishops and when he declares something to be part of the deposit of faith. If we look to the example of Peter dissembling and refusing to eat with the gentiles, we see again that that is not an example of Peter teaching something as belonging to the deposit of faith but rather a personal failing. He did not stand up and teach as head of the apostles, "it is forbidden to eat with the Gentiles." There is no evidence in Scripture of that. In fact when he did get up to speak at the Council of Jerusalem, he taught the truth, that gentiles are welcome in the Church without first having to become Jews and that all are saved by grace alone.

As for Peter being the Chief Shepherd among the other apostles who are also shepherds, see John 21:15-19. Peter is given the task by Jesus to "Feed my sheep" and "Tend my sheep." This is not said to the other apostles. They are certainly called to tend the sheep of Jesus, but Peter alone is given the role of tending the whole flock. It is true that Jesus gives the power to bind and loosen to all the apostles, and that is contained in the Catholic teaching that all the bishops in the world speaking together are infallible, such as at a Church Council. However, one can find throughout history examples of bishops who do not express the true faith, such as Bishop Strossmayer, who contradicts the vast majority of bishops at Vatican I as well as many of the patristic writers. His position cannot be called the Catholic position because it was rejected by the Council of bishops.

1 Timothy 4:1-3 refers to those who require abstinence "from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth." That in its proper context refers to the Judaizers who would not eat pork or any unclean animal or to those who refused to eat meat sacrificed to idols. They forbid this because they think that it is unclean, whereas the Lord has declared all foods good and worthy of being eaten with thanksgiving. The Catholic Church does not forbid eating any type of meat as though it is bad. We recognize that all food is good and a gift from God. What the Church does require is that Catholics fast or abstain from meat on Fridays to commemmorate the Lord's death. It is giving up a lesser good for the sake of a greater good.

Besides, St. Paul says you should not pass judgment or despise those who abstain (Romans 14:3). Who are you to pass judgment on someone else's servant? Before his own master he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. whoever abstains, abstains for the Lord and gives thanks to God. (Romans 14:6). Jesus also says that his disciples will fast once the bridegroom is gone (Mt. 9:15). If anyone fulfills this passage from 1 Timothy today it is the animal rights activists who say that it is evil to eat animal meat.

Secondly the Catholic Church does not forbid marriage to anyone. Those who choose to become priests also choose to take a vow of celibacy. If you say that is forbidding marriage, then you could say that all churches forbid marriage in the sense that they won't let someone who is already married marry again. The priest shows by his celibacy that there is something even greater than the good of marriage, and that is our relationship to Christ in the kingdom of God. 1 Cor. 7:32-35 recommends celibacy for any full time minister. Celibacy is also praised by Jesus in Mt. 19:12.

I am not threatening you in saying that you might regret what you say in comparing the pope to the antichrist. It would be regret in the same way that Paul regretted persecuting Christians once he found out that he was persecuting Christ himself.

On submitting to another person as if to God himself. Is it not possible that God could speak through another person and work through another person, so we can submit to that person as to the Lord? See Ephesians 5:22." Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord." This does not mean that the husband *is* God, but that God can work through him for the sanctification of his wife because of his baptism. It is a mystery on the level of faith. The wife has to believe that she is really submitting to Jesus when she submits to her husband because it is helping her to say, "Not my will, but thine be done." In a similar way, the husband is called to go out of himself to love his wife "as Christ loved the Church."

St. Paul himself says, "be imitators of me" (1 Cor. 4:16). He can only say this because Christ is living within him and acting through him (Gal 2:20) and teaching through him (1 Cor. 4:17). This makes St. Paul an apostle with the same authority to teach as the bishops have today. This authority was passed on by apostolic succession since he appointed Timothy to "remind you of my ways in Christ."(1 Cor. 4:17) Timothy received this power to teach (1 Tim. 4:11) through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate. (1 Tim. 4:14). Paul then asked Timothy to appoint men with this gift of teaching after him (2 Tim. 2:2) and Titus as well is called to appoint presbyters in every town. (Titus 1:5)

See St. Ignatius of Antioch who writes in 110 A.D. "Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God and with the presbyters in the place of the council of Apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest." He goes on to say, "It becomes you not to presume on the youth of the bishop, but to show him all reverence in consideration of the authority of God the Father: just as even the holy presbyters, so I have heard, do not take advantage of his outwardly youthful appearance, but yield to him in their godly prudence: yet, not to him, but to the Father of Jesus Christ, the bishop of all." --Letter to the Magnesians, 43-44.

St. Ignatius is expressing the faith of the early Christian Church which is the next generation after the apostles. Do you claim that you have a better understanding of the Scriptures and the teaching of Christ than he?

Re: your quote from "the Great Encyclical Letters." You will have to give me more of a citation than a book that I do not have. For example what pope wrote it, what letter is it, and what paragraph number? I have already answered the question whether you can submit to someone as to the Lord, and so did St. Ignatius of Antioch.

I read through your quote from the Council of Trent and I could not find the place where they referred to the pope as "Our Most Holy Lord." Also your reference to the forbidding of possession and reading of bibles is no doubt taken out of context. What the Council of Trent did teach is that "no one, relying on his own prudence, twist Holy Scripture in matters of faith and morals that pertain to the edifice of Christian doctrine, according to his own mind, contrary to the meaning that the Church has held and holds, and that no one dare to interpret the Scripture in a way contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers."

St. Paul says it is possible to misinterpret Scripture and twist its message, so how do we know what it really means? We have to go by the intention of the author which can be determined by looking at the faith and practices of the early Church (the patristic sources). 2 Peter 1:20 says there is no prophecy in scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation. That's the whole problem with "sola scriptura" (which isn't scriptural), if anyone has the power to interpret the true sense of Scripture on his own, then why are there so many contradictory interpretations? We need some other authority to help us understand the meaning of the words in the bible. Origen writes that one must interpret the Scriptures "according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church." (Hom. in Leviticus, 5,5 circa 244 A.D.)

Here is a quote from St. Irenaeus who writes in 180 A.D.

"When, therefore, we have such proofs, itis not necessary to seek among others the truth which is easily obtained from the Church. For the Apostles, like a rich man in a bank, deposited with her most copiously everything which pertains to the truth; and everyone whosoever wishes draws from her the drink of life. For she is the entrance to life, while all the rest are thieves and robbers. That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them, while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. What then? If there should be a dispute over some kind of question, ought we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches in which the Apostles were familiar, and draw from them what is clear and certain in regard to that question? What if the Apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the Churches?" --Against Heresies, 3,4,1.

As St. Paul states, the church of the living God is the pillar and foundation of truth. (1 Tim. 3:15)

Your quote from Pope Leo XIII is actually from the document "On the Unity of the Church" written in 1896, and we should read it in its full context. (I suspect you are taking these quotes from an anti-Catholic book, but that is ok, I found the source document at www.vatican.va).

Here is the full quote, "For the same reason, therefore, because Christ was about to withdraw His visible presence from the Church, it was necessary that He should appoint someone in His place, to have the charge of the Universal Church. Hence before His Ascension He said to Peter: `Feed my sheep' " (St. Thomas, Contra Gentiles, lib. iv., cap. 76). Jesus Christ, therefore, appointed Peter to be that head of the Church; and He also determined that the authority instituted in perpetuity for the salvation of all should be inherited by His successors, in whom the same permanent authority of Peter himself should continue. And so He made that remarkable promise to Peter and to no one else: "Thou are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church" (Matt. xvi., 18). "To Peter the Lord spoke: to one, therefore, that He might establish unity upon one" (S. Pacianus ad Sempronium, Ep. iii., n. 11).

Leo XIII is saying that since Christ willed His Church to be visible, though He continues to guard and govern His Church from heaven, he had to appoint his "vice-regent" on earth. He is not saying that the pope displaces Christ or God, but rather that he is Christ's visible representative on earth to continue His teachings.

I have no idea what the "New York Catechism" is, but the quote you have from there I would have problems with. It needs to be explained a little more and cannot be taken at face value. In any case, the "New York Catechism" is not official Church teaching. The official teaching is what I have written, that Jesus Christ is the founder of dogmas, the pope just passes them along. Jesus Christ is the primary head and foundation of the church, the pope is secondary and dependent upon Christ.

As for the triple crown, the current pope has seen that it is not fitting to wear, and wishes to return to the concept of a "simple father" over his household, the Church, wearing only a mitre. I will admit that there may have been excesses in the history as far as certain practices, but not in Church teaching. Do not insult the pope by implying that he has never read the bible. It is much more challenging to realize that the pope is steeped in Holy Scripture. See our current pope who continues to walk, even with a broken hip that is badly healed and one who struggles with the onset of a type of Parkinson's disease. One who continues to bend his knee to Jesus, despite the pain.

Now the keys. You constantly fall for the error that everything has to be either-or. Either Christ has the keys or Peter does. The truth is they both have the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Peter possesses them in a subordinate way to Christ. Whatever he declares bound on earth "will have been bound" in heaven.

Here's your quote from Jesus with reference to the Pharisees, " The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: all things therefore whatsoever they bid you, these do and observe: but do not do ye after their works; for they say and do not. Yea, they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be born, and lay them on men's shoulders: but they themselves will not move them with their finger." This is the tradition of the authoritative "chair" (cathedra) or "seat" continued in the office of the papacy and the bishops. In other words there is precedence here that someone can be given authority from God to teach the truth by virtue of the office he holds, but is not necessarily personally holy. Likewise we should do whatever the pope and bishops teach (because it's the same teaching as Christ's), but not imitate them if they are leading sinful lives.

The pope does not come up with his teachings on his own, but they are revealed to him by the Holy Spirit, just as Peter knew that Jesus was God by special revelation from God.

I agree that Peter has no authority "over" the apostles in the early Church because they are all teaching the same thing in unity of faith. However what do we do when there are certain bishops later on in the history of the Church that teach contradictory things? They can't both be right. The Church fathers have always looked to the bishop of Rome for the expression of the truth faith when there have been disagreements because that is the church founded by Peter and Paul. Even when the *majority* of bishops succumbed to the Arian hersey in 325 A.D. the bishop of Rome maintained the true faith.

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2000