St. Peter the Apostle
In this thread, I happen to engage in an exchange in Debate Unlimited Facebook Site with two members of the Seventh Day Adventist Church who reacted to my article on the Biblical proof that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. I would like to share this to our readers because I think this is instructive of some of the misconceptions and objections of some SDA members about the Catholic Church and also on our answers to their objections. Since the exchange is on-going I will be posting future exchanges with the permission of our Splendor of the Church Blog administrator Reverend Father Abraham Arganiosa. The names of the SDA members are Hernane Lumanog and Melquisedec Revilla Decierdo. – PROF. RAMON GITAMONDOC
LUMANOG: If Peter is just alive today he will say I do not know you.
MY REPLY: If Peter were alive today, which among the myriad of Churches would you think he will identify with? With the Catholic Church which recognizes the primacy which Christ bestowed upon him [Matthew 16:18-19; John 21:15-17] or to those other Churches of recent origin who deny his primacy? You bet.
LUMANOG: Never in the bible that he claim that he is a Roman Catholic Church member.
MY REPLY: So, do you think that he will claim to be a member of one of these churches of recent origin which are separated from apostolic times in the measure of centuries? Can you point to me which of the churches that exists today can trace its origin back to the time of the Apostles in an unbroken historical link?
LUMANOG: It is only your claim that Peter is your founder. Nagmata lang ug morning si Peter.
MY REPLY: We do not claim that Peter is the founder of the Catholic Church. Jesus is. “The Catholic Church is the divine society founded by JESUS CHRIST and bestowed by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Specifically this is the society of believers united under the bishop of Rome and hence is often called Roman Catholic Church” (Grolier’s Encyc Volume 5, page 106). Among the rival claimants to be the true Church of Christ, only the Catholic Church can prove her claim based on Biblical data and the testimony of history. She ALONE can trace her history back to the time of the Apostles. Can you trace yours? Can you equally demonstrate that your leaders belong to that line of ordained ministers coming from the apostles (1 Timothy 4:14; 5:22; Titus 1:5; Acts 13:1-2)?
LUMANOG: Talking about infallibility of your teaching it is not true because it is really [in]fallible. I will sight one. You claim your pope is infallible and that is not the teaching in the bible. The bible says in 1 John 1:10 “If anyone says he has no sin, then he is a liar and we do not abide in his word.” Romans 3:23: “all have sinned and came short of the glory of God.” You mean your pope is sinless?
MY REPLY: Sorry to say that you don’t understand what infallibility means. You have misconstrued infallibility with impeccability. Infallibility is not being able to teach error in matters of salvation [faith and morals]. This is guaranteed by Jesus to his Church [Mat 16:18; John 14:16; 1Timothy 3:15]. Impeccability is not being able to sin which is what 1 John 1:10 is all about. The Catholic Church does not claim that the pope cannot sin. Every day the pope celebrates mass and together with the faithful in attendance he prays “For I have sinned in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and in what I have failed to do.” The apostles were sinners like us as your quote suggests but in their teaching about divine revelation they were preserved from teaching error. If the Holy Spirit did it before to protect the early Church from error, there is no reason why that protection would cease once the last apostle would die considering that He promised to be with his Church all days until the end of time (Mat 28:20) and that the Holy Spirit will always be there to guide the Church (John 14:16, 26). How can the Church be “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Timothy 3:15) if she could teach formal heresy?? Are we going to stand by God’s word or are we going to empty it of its meaning?
Bro Lumanog says: “I’m sorry to tell that you are diverting your answer to me re- infallibility of the pope. You go back to review your doctrine. It is the statement and teaching of the Roman Catholic Church that the pope cannot err and is infallible.”
MY REPLY: Modesty aside, one thing I can assure you Bro. Lumanog is that I know the Catholic faith more than you do. Your quote on the meaning of infallibility is incomplete and your understanding of it is totally erroneous. Infallibility of the Pope means that when the Pope exercises his supreme authority as the head of the Church, being the successor of Peter, in defining matters of faith and morals for acceptance by all Catholics throughout the world then by the promise which Christ gave to Peter (Mat 16:18-19) and by the special assistance given to the Church by the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26), the pope cannot teach error. Let me ask you this question: Does your church (SDA?), through your leaders, claim to teach infallibly or not? Please answer.
Bro Lumanog says: “going back to our foundation in Matt 16:18, the rock there is not Peter but Jesus Christ which means Petra in Greek word. Petros is peter in Greek word a moving stone. Search for petra and petro in the internet for your better info.”
MY REPLY: Again, modesty aside, I am aware of the nuisance of petros and Petra in Greek. What I think is that you, Bro Lumanog, is not aware that when Jesus spoke those words to Peter in Matthew 16:18 Jesus was not speaking Greek but Aramaic and in Aramaic you don’t find the distinction you made. It is rendered “Thou art KEPHA and upon this KEPHA I will build my Church.” It is time you confront the Catholic Argument and don’t keep on relying on the petros/Petra argument because it will keep you in the dark. Let me clarify though. Matthew originally wrote his gospel in Aramaic but when it was translated to Greek, the translator was forced to use the masculine word “petros” for Peter since Peter is a man [which is of course obvious]. Further, you have not responded to my reply on the grammatical usage of the demonstrative pronoun “this” when Jesus said “upon THIS rock I will build my Church.”
Bro Lumanog says: “Re- our foundation it is being, I’m sure it’s from Jesus because He went to synagogue every sabbath (saturday) that is why our worship day is the sabbath day. That is the original.”
MY REPLY: Let’s focus first on Matthew 16:18 before you open up other issues such as worshipping on the sabbath day. If you will admit that you have no more counter arguments on Matthew 16:18 then I will welcome a discussion on the day of rest for Christians.
Bro Decierdo says: “You said that, it has pleased our Lord to establish his church upon Peter as the visible head. Now my first question, Can you show to us now, Peter? Or, Is Peter now visible?”
MY REPLY: The apostle Peter continues to rule the Church in the person of his successors, the roman pontiffs. Jesus knew that the apostles, being men, would die but their ministry will continue until the end of time (Matthew 28:19-20). Therefore the Petrine ministry of binding and loosing [rabbinic expression which connotes teaching, judging, and governing] must also continue for this is essential to the constitution of the Church Jesus founded. Before the apostles left this world they appointed men who will succeed them in their apostolic ministry (Read Acts 13:1-3; 1 Timothy 4:14, 5:22; Titus 1:5). They ordained deacons, priests and Bishops. Can your Church (SDA?) trace its lineage in this unbroken line of ordained ministers? We can.
Bro Decierdo: You said that it has pleased our Lord to established his church upon Peter as the visible head.” and my question is, Can you show us Peter now? Or, Is Peter now visible, as he is the visible head of the Roman Catholic Church as your claim?
MY REPLY: My statement is “Christ established the Church upon Peter as the visible head.” Bro Decierdo’s [mis]interpretation is “Therefore Peter must be visible until now.” This interpretation is incredible. I don’t know if Bro Decierdo realizes this or not. When did Christ establish his Church? Did he establish it yesterday or in 33 AD. If Christ established his Church just yesterday then Bro Decierdo might be justified in asking his question. But if Christ founded his Church more than 2000 years ago then Bro Decierdo’s question do not hold water. For the benefit of instructing Bro Decierdo let me elaborate. When Jesus founded his Church during the time he was here on earth He appointed Apostle Peter to be the visible head of the Church [at that time]. Of course, Peter assumed this office only when Jesus ascended into heaven. Was this office of leadership to die with the Apostle Peter? Certainly not! For if in the beginning the Church needed a visible head in the person of Peter, the Church as it started to spread and convert more followers also needed even the more a visible head to maintain unity of faith and government.
In order to make my response short I will abbreviate Bro Decierdo’s name as MRD with no disrespect and my reply with just ME. MRD says “So it is clear that Peter is not visible now” ME: Now you got it right, congratulations.
MRD: “So therefore he is not the visible head your church now.”
ME: The visible head of the RCC now is Pope Benedict XVI and he possesses the ministry of ruling and governing the Church of God which Christ first gave to the Apostle Peter. Our present pope can easily trace his lineage back to the Apostles in that unbroken line of ordained ministers (see 1 Timothy 4:14; 5:22; Titus 1:5; etc).
MRD: “And my next question for you: In the twelve apostles of Jesus Christ, did he establish his church upon Peter only or upon the twelve?
ME: Good question. Christ established his Church upon Peter as holding the primacy among the twelve since Jesus gave to Peter ALONE the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 16:19) and to no other apostle. The Church is also built upon the foundation of the twelve apostles collectively, and in union with Peter as the head of the apostolic college, with Jesus as the chief cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20).
Bro Hernane Lumanog says “Re-our foundation it is being, I’m sure it’s from Jesus because He went to synagogue every sabbath (Saturday) that is why our worship day is the sabbath day.
MY REPLY: First I would like to point out that sabbath literally means “day of rest” and Saturday is the designation of a day of the week derived from the pagan “day of Saturn.” Second, just because Jesus went to the synagogue every sabbath (Luke 4:16) does not prove that He is an SDA nor does it prove that Saturday is the day of rest for Christians.Jesus went inside the temple every day in order to teach (Matthew 25:55). Does it mean that every day is a day of rest (sabbath)? No Bro Hernane Lumanog. The founder of the SDA is not Jesus Christ. The SDA was founded by William Miller but its’ virtual founder was a woman by the name of Ellen Gould White. Jesus founded his Church in Jerusalem in the year 33 AD. SDA was founded not in Jerusalem but in the USA. SDA was founded not in year 33 AD but only in the year 1844. You should check your own church’s history. Try this test: Where was the SDA in the year 1800 AD? Who were its’ leaders by then? If your answer is you don’t know it should not surprise you and it will not surprise us either for the simple reason that SDA was non-existent by then. I know that there are many nice and well-meaning SDA members but the truth must be told. SDA did not originate from Jesus.
–
Posted By Blogger to The Splendor of the Church at 10/07/2012
