I’m quite tired at the end of this long day, however, I just wanted to say that this Coren fellow is walking on some dangerous ground by the sounds of it. He’s basically trying to say that Jesus isn’t our Savior and that the Church is. I believe that the Bible is God’s word, and that Jesus was the Word made flesh; and that He is the Way, the Truth and the Life; and that no man comes to the Father but by Him (the Lord Jesus Christ).
Jesus left us the Holy Ghost to be our comforter; He helps us pray God’s will; Gives us His strength to actually be and do all that God’s created us to be and to do. When I read God’s word, the Holy Spirit makes it alive and real to my spirit and it’s a wonderful thing. I’m getting off track here (very sleepy right now) but I guess what I’m trying to say is that Coren is really in a dangerous place with what he is trying to teach. God’s word is such a simple thing, and man when someone tries to complicate it, then I know there’s something wrong.
Even a little child can understand the Gospel and what it means to be saved by Jesus.

Those who propagate a certain Christian denomination will certainly lose focus on our Lord Jesus Christ. 
People, listen to Pastor Peter. He has the love & wisdom of God.
Pastor, the Lord continue to bless you so you can be a blessing to us.

It is unfortunate that Michael Coren’s book wasn’t “Why Jesus is right.” That is the real issue between the different world religions. Many misrepresent who Jesus was/is, what he taught. Jesus was spotless, blameless, perfect and he is still alive. We can still go to him directly for help, for salvation today. Jesus’ church is made up of followers of him and they can be found in numerous denominations. The RC denomination can trace its denominational lineage way back as can the Coptic Orthodox church-both with their own separate popes today. Peter wasn’t declared “the sole pope” and couldn’t have because that wasn’t God’s plan. There were 12 apostles in the first church, not one. Having just one leader in the church leads to many problems.

I did enjoy Michael Coren’s talk show, he seemed reasonable and sound minded. His belief that only through The Roman Catholic is one saved is frightening. Did not Jesus call the Pharisee’s hypocrites, how can Coren not see the relation to his statements about the Catholic church being the only way to salvation and Jeusus’s condemnation of the Pharisee’s.

Dear Peter,
I found this article to be excellent. We need far more of these articles clarifying books on religion.
Thank you.

It’s obvious why Michael Coren believes in salvation through the Roman Catholic Church (or any other organized religion). It’s because he doesn’t have a personal revelation of Jesus Christ. Now don’t get me wrong. He may have knowledge of certain ‘facts’ about Jesus - namely that He was born of a virgin, and died on the cross. But having a very limited head knowledge, doesn’t hold a candle to having heart knowledge!
Head knowledge without heart knowledge, is like trying to find your way in the dark by using a flashlight that hasn’t any batteries.

I enjoyed reading your post, as I usually do. I would tend to agree as well. As someone who was raised by one Catholic and one Protestant parent, including having been baptized, had first communion, and first confession in the Catholic church, I feel I am qualified to speak on the subject to some degree. I also graduated from Tyndale University College and Seminary several years ago, and have long since done my research and decidedly fallen on the Protestant side of the fence. I am very glad that you have decided to tackle this issue in spite of the fact that it has the potential to offend some of your contemporaries, as I feel that it is a very necessary topic to weigh in on. Coren’s, and all Catholic assertions that Peter was the first pope, hinge on the passage found in Matthew 16:17-18, when Jesus states:
“Blessed are you, Simon bar [son of]Jonah, for flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, but My Father in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Of course, these folks fail to have the hermeneutic training, in my opinion, to realize that Jesus was referring to the statement rather than the person as being the “rock”. It is unfortunate for Catholics and the church as a whole, for that matter, that Peter’s name in Greek is translated “Cephas”, which means “rock”, for this is what has caused all the trouble. If Jesus here were referring to Peter rather than to the words out of Peter’s mouth, the translation would read, “and on Peter I will build my church…”. Needless to say, it does not. If eternal life were found through the Catholic church, there would be no reason for Jesus to say, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). Furthermore, if He had intended us to confess our sins to a human being and perform works to absolve them, it would not have been said, “There is one mediator between God and man, the Man Jesus Christ” (1 Tim. 2:5). For biblical evidence of why works such as “Hail Mary’s” absolving sins does not fly, one may read the entire book of Galatians. Matthew 23:9, the second of the 10 Commandments; I could go on all day with the research I’ve done that convinced me. Yes, it is quite obvious to me that Mr. Coren is in error on this one, and although I too have many friends and family within the Catholic institution, and although I will quite happily assert that there are many good followers of Christ who worship within the Catholic institution, it is apparent to me that the institution itself is not one that Jesus came to create. The Church is the Body of Christ, wherever they worship, and not a building or institution. It is extremely sad to learn that such a public defender of Christian faith in this city like Michael Coren would come out with such a wayward thesis for his literary work, but I suppose that is the logical conclusion for one who founds their faith on an institution that chooses to esteem one verse within the biblical narrative while completely ignoring many others. It’s too bad, because they are so clearly genuine.

Keep up the good work, Peter!

We need to pray for Michael Coren. I’ve enjoyed his shows, but his stance seems to cross important lines.
Please get it right Michael!.. Jesus is the Way,the Truth and the Life.
He ...not a church, died on the cross for our salvation!

Michael Coren promotes pre-TridentineII and pre-“Joint declaration” doctrines.

Regarding the “Assumption of Mary” it is connected with the concept of purgatory, that partly comes from the jewish understanding of “Gehennah”, and from the misunderstanding, that arise, whin you mix up the “Realm of the Dead (Sheol/Hades)” and the “Firepit of Revelations” into the KJV understanding of Hell. What we probably can agree, is that if Mary, Mother of Jesus hasn’t assumpted to Heaven yet, she will arive in Heaven, the New Earth or the World to Come (dear child, many names) at some time, just as everyone else. Further discussion would fill too much.

The concept of no salvation outside “The Church” no longer applies, partly becaause of Tridentine II, partly because of Joint Derclaration on Justification. The Catholic Church at least recognise salvation for Orthodox and Lutherans, which also gives hope for other christians… ;-)
Actually Joseph, Adoptive Father of Jesus, as well as Abraham, Isac & Jacob, King David and most prophets are considered saved even though they didn’t live to see Calvary and resurrection. As such there is even salvation without baptism, as long as one is not called to be part of the chuch e.g. newly convinced christians who becomes martyrs. As such Coren doesn’t now or disregards present catholic doctrine.

Regarding Invocation of Saints it is correct, that it was a recorded practice amongst the defenders of the Doctrine of Trinity against the arians hierarchical understanding of God. As such the practice run back to the 4th century c.e. Even Luther and Melanchton recognized the presence of Saints in Heaven, but with them we must state, that the Bible neither suggest the practice, nor gives any guarantees of benefits from the practice. Contrary we see in Hebrews, that we are allowed to turn directly to God, and only need Jesus as intermediate. Thus the practice seems irrelevant to me.

Jesus is the way the truth and the light!!
I say mr. coren recieve Jesus grace!

I was born catholic and consider it a Christian religion. It was good for me to begin learning about God with nuns and priests but as other religions didn’t serve to really connect me with God. It was until I had a personal encounter with Jesus and began a relationship with him “the way, the truth and the life” that I discovered the father’s unconditional love for me and then left catholic church
Because there is a veil that avoids having revelation of the word of god related to having images and giving cult to them that is only devoted to God the father , the son and holy spirit.
Only the true God is to be worship.

What most people failed to realized is that we as spiritual beings as well should pursue a relationship with the Father, and not a religion.

coren need to know that Jesus did not bring to this earth any religion. What jesus taught was Kingdom which is good news, the rest is man made.
This days they are so many beliefs and docrtines but the only Gospel which should be preached is the good News about the kingdom.
people should be reading their Bible especially the new Testament which is a continuion of the Old Testament.

After reading the book “You can receive healing from God,” I know that Peter Youngren is a man of God, walking in revelational insights of the Word of God.
We thank God for you, and for giving correction where needed. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. And none comes to the Father, except through Him.

I went to Catholic schools ran by Irish nuns who believe in Christ Jesus, participated in mass and appreciate Catholic people.
Michael Coren, like all men, needs prayer. (Ephesians 1:17-25, 1 Timothy 2:1-2)

Dear people concerned
I am writing this because the Lord loves everyone
He is not a religion but a God of relationships
He cares for all…He does not sorry to say have more concern from someone
in church…or not..
There is a verse that says that “God is not a respecter of persons” and He wants to have a relation with ever-one of us..Chist died for us all to show us
the way to the Father…“For God so loved the world that He gave His only son
that whosoever believeth on Him shall not perish but have everlasting life” ( Jn 3:16)
Take care now
Francis

Very well written analysis of Michael Coren’s book. I have listen to michael for about 10yrs now and percieve a spirit that is of God. Very dissappointed at some comments attacking the salvation of a man you all don’t know well enough to say he is saved or not. While I am not catholic, I don’t see anything wrong in any church, denomination or message that recommends a particular way of worship. As a Pastor and Publisher, I know its always possible for 3 people to read same book and draw out different conclusions.

I believe time can be better spent on preaching what u believe and educate others, instead criticizing other peoples work. The facts remains that critics don’t win, they only observe and always believe that they have all the answer (just like watching a sports game). Pls let’s respect everyones effort and if you want to correct pls it can be done in love. I have read corens articles yrs ago and I loved them. - God Bless

The Bible says that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins… Hebrews 9:22 Jesus Christ shed His blood for the whole world! John 3:16
His statement in the gospel is clear: “None comes to the Father except through Me.” John 14:6
If you are confused, read your bible and ask Holy Spirit to give you a deeper revelation on this! Everything you need to konw about life and Godliness is there…2 Peter 1:3-4

Peter Youngren:  God bless you Peter for standing up for the truth!  I agree with your comments. For the last 1000 years, men and women have come out of the false teachings of the Roman Catholic church to embrace the truths of scripture. Men and women paid for the precious truths they received with their lives. Jude warns of what would happen in the last days.
Michael Coren exalts a system and teachings many of which are totally false. Worship and prayer to Mary is blasphemy. Infallibility of the Pope, and the office of the Pope is totally contrary to scripture. He is not the vicar of Christ. Only Jesus Christ is the Head of the church on earth and in Heaven.
No man should be called “father” or Holy Father, this also is a lie and blasphemy.  But then, in today’s age, who cares about truth?  the Mass which is declared to be transformed into the actual blood and body of Christ is also a blasphemy and a lie. Jesus died once for all men, and he simply said, “do this in remembrance of me”.  Priests not permitted to marry is a lie. Peter had a wife. Every minister of the Gospel is welcome to marry if he or she chooses.  People should read the Gospels, read Peter’s epistles, the book of Jude and especially the book of revelation, which talks of the great whore who sits upon many waters.
God bless you for taking a stand for truth!
Man will not support you, but God will!

I feel sorry for Mr. Michael Coren. Let us pray that God will give him the insight into the word of God to know the Truth.

Yes, so thankful that you have created a platform that those who were listening was not at all felt comfortable to some of Michael Corin’s statements can express ourselves. I hope he does not believe in confessing of sins to the “father” the rosary and purgatory. My heart aches and my spirit cries out to Jesus when I hear some of our catholic sister and brothers speak of their beliefs. I know quite a lot about this religion having brought up in an Anglican Church.
I pray that they including Michael may come into the understanding that life can be found only in Jesus Christ our Redeemer before it is too late.

I recently read a line of comments on FB concerning Michael Coren.  Very quickly it turned into a discussion on Roman Catholism, so my question was:  ‘Since when did Michael Coren become synonymous with Roman Catholism?’  Thank You for providing the answer.

In my opinion Mr. Coren appears to be a very sensible “Christian.”  I just think that he became a little confused in authoring his book, when he tried to use philosophical sensationalism to drum up sales.  He was trying to utilize reverse psychology on the reading public to get more attention; and thus a bigger profit margin.

Coren knows that SALVATION is through none other but JESUS CHRIST. 
He knows that no denomination can save mankind.  Right Michael?

This comment of only Roman Catholics having eternal life truly is appalling.
I would think that any christians who are annointed with the Holy Spirit will never make a remark like this.
Jesus who is God in flesh will always be the headline - the rests are mere details….

Perhaps it is time to reread peter the apostle part in the gospel. Jesus did say to him on this rock will i build my church after God the Father revealed to him who Jesus really is.. All the disciples were present when this question was posed and Jesus asked to see who the Father would choose.. I can do nothing of myself except what i see the Father do.
I dont agree that the church is the salvation or the pope but it is the instrument where the sheep are fed as Jesus said to Peter . feed my lambs and feed my sheep. Also read Acts and see how mightily the Holy Spirit was with Peter even his shadow healed the sick.

Perhaps the reformed christian church is too antagonistic towards peter the apostle always pointing out his weaknesses rather then his strengths.Jesus prophesied over peter concerning the denials of him so that this Scripture might be fulfilled- not one who was given to me will be lost -(except for the son of perdition) .on pediphile it is horrendous but if you go back in among the prophesy of the saints there was a saint who literally carried a millstone around his neck for a time and if the pope or anyone took it to heart they would have seen the truth and found the Scripture - anyone who abuses one of these little ones .... and i would say no one is without sin and Jesus do not judge lest you be judge and also let the wheat grow up with the tares and the angels will do the harvest at the end time.

Catholic actually means universal pilgrim so as chrsitians we are all catholics as for the roman Christianity defeated the Roman empircal rule and it became the center from which Jesus is proclaimed as Saviour or Christianity the religion of the empire Watch The Dawning on Day of Discovery (DOD.org)
Peace Peter and remember Jesus said to the disciples Love one another as I have loved you and In John it says if they preach Jesus died and risen they are your brothers and Paul said follow me as I follow Christ. Pray for your enemies,

Speaking as a former Roman Catholic with a long line of generational catholicism I want to thank Peter Youngren for bringing the truth of Gods word to this work of deceit that is going on within the Roman Catholic church.
After the holy spirit revealed to me the lies that this institution purports, it took me ONE day to get out of it! Sadly it has taken 25years to get the church out of me and Im still working on it.
By the grace of God and men of truth like Peter I will get freed of this insidious brain washing.
My Family and Myself have suffered immensly under this Horrendous Institution that parades holiness.
wAKE up Catholics.

There is one true church. It has has existed since the day of Pentecost almost two thousand years ago. It was made up then and is still made up of everyone who trusts in Jesus Christ to save them from their sins. Some of these people go to Catholic churches. Some don’t.

I am glad you spoke out about Michael Coren’s book. I was raised as a Catholic but I believe that the Lord led us away from that denomination because many of the Catholic teachings that do not line up with scripture and actually contradict scripture:  the immaculate conception of Mary, the assumption of Mary, prayer to Mary, dispensations for salvation of dead people, transubstantiation, the view of priests as intermediates between God and man and the infallibility of the pope to name a few.

I have to say I was shocked when Michael Coren’s book came out. In the past I have appreciated his comments on his own program and on the Calwell Account, I am glad that you spoke out about the issues in his book that could give Catholics a false sense of security. They might believe, as I did for years, that they are OK to place their trust in the Catholic church and blindly follow what they are told to do and not question why these doctrines of men are being promoted as truths.

I can say I appreciate Michael Coren and I am glad that this has come out so we can reason together and pray for one another. God bless him and his family.
But then Peter, on your show you were selling communion cups from Israel? That sounded a little Catholic to me.
Love and prayers,
Nancy

Pastor Peter, I just want you to know you are not alone in proclaiming what you have. I come agreeing with your proclamation of Mikel Coran. It is time that the body of Christ stop the mud slinging. At the same time those that are called to speak be accountable to what is being said. That is how cults are started, to take the truth, twist it just a little to change generations to come!
The bible is very clear there is only one way man can be saved! The only way to the father is through the the son of God.
I have a prophetic anointing, and when I was a baby Christian I was in the bath tub one night and my feet started to shake and I ask Lord what is that and I heard the shoes of the good news. Then I seen a sword come out of my mouth and asked Lord what is that and He said the word of God. I asked what does that mean? He said I want you to evangelize. I asked who?  And I heard My church. YOUR CHURCH!!! I said totally in shock!!! then I heard yes they don’t know me. WOW! As I traveled this land I would meet catholic after catholic and God would convict me to love them and ask if you died today could you guarantee me that you would go to heaven, and the general response would be I hope so. It gave me the opportunity to share and make sure that they are BORN AGAIN first of water and then of fire.
The thing He will say at that great day is well done good and faithful servant or turn from me I never knew you. It is all about a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus this side of the fence. Building our treasure not hear but in heaven ( souls saved)
I pray and thank God for brothers like you that will in love just stand and proclaim the true onto death (remnant).
May the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob continue to bless your ministry and all that you do for the Kingdom of God and His RIGHTEOUSNESS in Jesus name I ask. Amen
Son of the most high God by adoption
Tom

Here we’re debating three things without distinguishing. Michael Coren teaching, core roman catholic doctrine and “local pactices, that contradicts core catholic doctrines”.

I’m not catholic, and I don’t think neither catholicism, nor the pope is without error. But I think much good has been achieved by “Vatican II” (erroneously I wrote Tridentine II above) and “Joint Declaration on Justification by Faith”. To some degree both roman catholics and protestants have admitted, that both parties could have acted differently and avoided the schism. As such it is recognized that reformer Philip Melanchton’s and reform catholic Paulus Helie’s approach were the better one; a great example for us to follow.

On the contrary Michael Coren shows the opposite possibility of reopening the gap, by ignoring the progress in relations between protestants and catholics - he ignorantly promotes the Tridentine doctrines of the counter-reformation that resulted in the european 30-years-war.

Blessings on you Pastor Peter for allowing God to work through you in such a clear, articulate and loving manner. Our true brothers and sisters in the Catholic church will recognize the errors of this kind of written dogma, but for the others, I hope that it will spur them on to question what is really true.  Jesus is the only way to the Father.

Peter Youngren is one of 10,000 Protestant Bible Denomination Church Leaders/Interpreters. “Little Popes” who expound:  “Let me tell you what the Bible teaches”  He is not in communion with Peter [Simon 1st Century] and the magesterium of the Church.  He believes his way is the way of Christ. “The Bible says…” [His favourite quote.] [Why not narrow it down Peter to book and verse?]  Can anyone be sure of that when he is the only interpreter of scripture for his man made church?  He attacks Michael Coren who upholds the teachings of the magesterium of the Catholic Church.  Where was Peter Youngren from the 1st Century A.D until now?  Tough questions for Peter Youngren the Catholic Church critic. Are 1.2 billion Catholics who uphold the sanctity of Life going to Hell? Protestant preachers get too caught up in their interpretations and embellishments of Luther et al.  who bend and twist scripture to suit their own biases. How about Peter Youngren and his followers beginning a study of Catholic beliefs from the 1st Century on? Here’s one question:  Is Solo Scriptura taught by Jesus and the eary Church which Protestants want so desperately to arrive at?
Wishing everyone a genuine search for the true church.  [Hint:  Look at the 1st Century Church and its worship]

Well Robert… I don’t think you have read much of the article… It seems you just stumbled upon the subject… If you had read, you’d know, that the article and the discussion primarily is about Michael Coren teachings, that is not coherent with the core catholic doctrines, and of course subsequently, the different interpretations from different denominations on a few core catholic doctrines.

As such, it is not an attack on catholicism in general, but primarily a refutation of Michael Corens reactionary, pre-“Vatican II” doctrines and his neglect of “Joint Declaration on Justification by Faith”... Thus Michael Coren does not uphold the teachings of the magesterium of the Catholic Church, but disrespect both the noble participants of “Vatican II” and the pope, as well as not accepting the lutheran brothers, whose papal ban has been removed with the “Joint Declaration…”.

And as I have written above, I have studied the 1st century church… But many of the core catholic doctrines in question arised in the 3rd and 4th century church e.g. the extra-biblical “invocation of saints” among trinitarian scholars in the 4th century, and the risk of breaking the 2nd command by “venerating icons” (don’t create a carved image or idol to worship it) that arose around the 8th century - the doctrines might be inside the margins christian belief, but simple minded or misguided persons might commit idolatry, because they cannot distinguish between veneration, invocation and worship…

But this forum is probably too limited to discuss the matter in detail…

Mr Coren is wrong of course, but our forefathers brought a lot of Roman church ideas with them. Biblical and historical facts…God’s new day starts at sunset. Rome changed it to midnight. We accept the change. God’s new year starts in the spring. Rome changed it to Jan 1. We accept the change. A deciple of John fought to save Passover as God instructed. Rome changed it to easter. We accept the change. The big one is that God told us and Jesus and all his deciples kept it, the 7th day Sabbath. Rome changed it to the 1st day. We accept the change. Christmas is also a Roman church invention, hard to believe but true. One just has to search historical records for proof!
So, Mr. Coren is wrong, but we do follow Rome’s traditions.
For those who are more diligent (probably 5% of church goers) in their search for the truth, Jesus told us “Seek”, You shall Find”.

I totally agree Kellie. If the space allowed it, we could refute all those issues, where the protestant reformation failed to return from Roman Catholic/Orthodox practice till Apostolic practice. On the specific topic you mention, I can recommend the Doctor Thesis: “From Sabbath to Sunday” by 7th day adventist Samuele Bacchiocchi, that was prized by the Pope. But remember, that this doctrine was changed due to the church father’s thorough interpretation of the scripture, even though Emperor Constantine might have had another agenda. The Roma Cathecism actually explains things, while the Lutheran Cathecism leaves explanation out of context by simply stating, that christians aren’t supposed to observe the ten commandments the same way jews are… That counts for the law of Moshe in general, but since the ten commandments are coherrent with the Noahidic laws and the Apostles Decree it is hardly fulfilling argumentation from Martin Luther’s hand. In this specific matter he relies rather on free interpretation, than sola scriptura…

Of course Michael Coran is walking on dangeous ground. These days it is socially acceptable to wrinte a book entitle Why Muslams Are Right or Why Juish Are Right or Why Protestants Are Right. But when it comes to Why Catholic Are Right…hooooooo. Why?  because Catholicism is the only remaining institution that is socially acceptable to persecute without being branded a bigot.

I just thank peter to bring up the subject of Michael Coran because I would have not discovers his book.  Because of that, I bought it and read it.

Jesus is the only only way to salvation… absolutely!!!  He came down here, brought a new covenant, sacrificed himself and left a church entrusted to some man.  For peter to say that Jesus did not established a church is muelty wrong. 102 times the NT is mentioning the word “church”. Christ undeniably establish a physical and mystical church.

Thanks for introducing me to Michael’s book, Peter.

Thank you Robert, for your statements about the (Catholic)Church. No where in that New Testament Youngren recommends reading are we told to interpret scripture willy-nilly; however, as Daniel states, this discussion is more about the “wrongness” of Michael Coren’s book, “Why Catholics are Right.”  It’s a shame that Peter Youngren seems to have read Coren’s work with a preconceived idea that Cathoics, and Coren in particular, are wrong.  I thought Coren’s outline of specific issues were presented cogently from careful scholarship.  He answered the hard questions but didn’t pay homage at the altar of political correctness.  Vito, above, is right about the last socially acceptable persecution being directed towards the Church.  I think THAT’s why this book has been panned by Mr. Youngren, but it reminds me of when I was a child and we often heard the playground taunt, “the truth hurts, doesn’t it?”  Is that the reason for your churlish review, Sir?

I was reading Ryan’s comment way up their. He said Michael’s book is basically trying to say that Jesus isn’t our Savior and that the Church is.  I read the book. It doesn’t say that all. On the contrary. I believe Michael’s book brings out all the issues in a very scriptural and historic way. Issued that most protestant denominations have wrong about the church and don’t make the efforts to research properly. I say reading double check Micheal Coren’s statement and you will be surprise about what you find. I listened to Peter comments about this book on TV and I think your responses were very vague.

Peter Youngren needs to undertake a serious study of the Catholic Church’s Canons and beliefs and practices which stem from apostolic times.  The logic and coherence will lead to Truth. [with a capital “T”. Many, many Protestant preachers contort and twist scripture to prove their own biases and preferences.  Does everyone know that Martin Luther added the word “alone” to the German translation:  “faith alone”?  I believe Robert writing above sums it up: Nowwhere does our Blessed Lord say that the bible was to be the infallible word. Some passages say that scriptures have authority,  but it doen’t come out plainly and say it is the final word.  If God/Jesus has the power to create the whole universe and rise from the dead,  would he not have the power to grant guidance and infallibility to the Catholic Church’s pope as He stated in Matthew 22? “Whatever you declare lawful on earth, will be held lawful in heaven”  If the church moves the Sabbath to Sunday, the Lord’s Rising Day, then it will be so in heaven too. [one small example]

That’s way the betsset answer so far!

Hi Caleb, ya you’re right on a couple of things, many Protestant preachers do spin the word to their own needs, but so do priests. You know that. Martin Luther? not a good person, I read his writings. So that’s understood between us.
BUT!! you state that nowhere does our blessed Lord say the Bible to be the infallible word!!?? But the pope IS infallible!!!??
You’re telling us that our Lord, Creator of all that we know and will never know,who summoned men to put His Truth to paper, spoke fallible words? And you state that the Lord does not come out and plainly say “this” is My final word on any subject. Does anyone think that He had this all done for us and then decided ” Hey wait,, I may have made a mistake, I hope a pope who is infallible can fix it for me!!!”
So, I can only conclude that the catholic mind has it that our Lord goofs from time to time, but the pope is incapable of error! What can I say? WOW!!
As Always, Be Well
Kellie

Not sure who Turk was referring to-hopefully it was about Peter’s article and not Caleb’s comment. It is a scary thing when someone puts their trust, their faith in any denomination (not just Roman Catholicism) instead of Jesus. Jesus never set up a “one Pope system” but rather one that had 12 apostles working together to make decisions about the church. The apostle Paul even rebuked Peter, proving they did not “revere” Peter (Cephas) the way the RC group does to its popes:

“When Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?” Galatians 2:11-14

There you have Peter being told he was not living correctly but acting in hypocrisy and being chastised by Paul.
Clearly not a “one Pope” system.

Well it is clear that we have a different startpoint for our discussion. Yes, the new testament grew out of the ancient church, and as such it can be considered a product of the church. But on the other hand the books of the news testament canon - all written in the 1st century - was confirmed as authoritative by the 4th century synods. The nicene and apostolic creeds are coherent with the Bible, and as such accepted by most christian denominations. As such that would be a good common foundation for our discussion.

But when you add, that one man, who is not mentioned directly in the Bible, and whose position is only recognized by one denomination, can change the practices of the ancient church and is the only one that can interprete the Bible in a correct way, then the foundation shakes.

Of course you can quote extra-biblical authorities in a discussion as long as they don’t contradict the foundation of the discussion, but if we don’t agree about the foundations, we speak besides one another and get no real dialogue - and that is sad, since we have needed this dialogue since peoples as Philip Melanchton and Paulus Helie ceased to uphold the dialogue - The Pope of those days as well as Martin Luther won, but the question is wether catholics and lutherans lost.

Being a methodist-salvationist, I could refute not only catholics, but also Lutherans, baptists, pentecostals and adventist - but what good would it achieve. I try to uphold an open and loving dialogue, while avoiding ridiculing and polemic speech. I believe that’s the only way we can move on together, instead of hiding inside a cheese bell

Just a little thought… Can one say, that Martin Luther went too far, yet he didn’t go far enough (Andreas Karlstadt would claim the latter). Yes, Luther went a great step to abolish the socalled “abuses” - and in any reformation or revival you risk stepping on somone’s toes - but at the Diet of Worms he admitted being polemical.

Actually there was questions he never touched - e.g.
- From Sabbath to Sunday (7th Day Adventist/Baptists)
- Was Jesus born in the winter
- Slavery, oppression of workers etc.
- Work of the Holy Spirit

And questions he never fully answered:
- The questions about baptism - well he said his opinion, but he never solved the issue, which arises from the new testament text assuming, that the reader already knows practice and thus only explains the theology of baptism. Actually the simplest way to distinguish denominations from each other is by baptism practice - but while explaining baptism theology, the Bible says very little about baptism practice - not even the amount of water needed!
- We’re not saved by good deeds - but how do we avoid neglecting the process of holiness

Probably you can supply the list with further issues… But am I right, if I state,  that Martin Luther went too far, yet he didn’t go far enough…

Yes, you’re right in saying that martin Luther went too far by leading so many away from the fullness of the faith.

A good starting point would also be: Do I know and understand that Catholic teaching as the church sees it? That’s the point of Michael Coran’s book if anyone wish to read it. I’m saying this as I see that you seem to imply that the pope the person capable of interpreting correctly the scripture, that’s where the foundation shakes. It is the church, not the pope or a person it particular that holds the truth.  The pope speaks rarely ex cathedra which is on faith and morals.
Extra-biblical authorities as you say it only confirms the teachings and the practices of the early church… the catholic church.

@Alain: that would be at least exageration, if not downright slander, to claim that Martin Luther lead many away from the fullness of the faith… Is it so bad, that he searched for a merciful God and exposed the vanity of indulgences and relics? Have you ever read Confessio Augustana, refutatio and Melanchtons Apology - have you studied the Trident concil and the Vatican II concil, before just deciding on a verdict? Have you studied the danish reform catholic Paulus Helie (Poul Helgesen) or Luther’s unity seeking co-worker Philip Melanchton? Does “Joint Declaration on Justification by Faith” mean nothing? And maybe you should consider reading John Wesley, too, before you decide on you verdict… Unfortunately the ban of Martin Luther made it impossible for people like Paulus Helie to do anything for more than 400 years… It is sad, that people actually thought, these divine matters could be solved in a counterreformation with swords, guns, rifles and cannon balls - only through a sincere dialogue we can get anywhere.

As far as I’m concerned Wesley explains the interaction of faith and good deeds quite well… You see, even though St. Paul stress justification by faith, St. Jacob explains, that faith without good deeds is dead - the good deeds help us staying on the narrow path - and unselfish good deeds can show what is in our hearts, as long as we don’t seek vain man’s glory… As such, the roman doctrine saying “believe and do good deeds” is simpler to grasp, while Wesley’s teaching about justification by faith and nescessity of holiness, through the Holy Spirit working in our hearts to transform us from our selfish nature, can be more complicated to understand.

@Vito: I’m sorry to tell you, that the extrabiblical authorities don’t exactly confirm, that the early church had and the catholic church has the same teachings and practices… In fact - child babtism does not seem to be an issue before the 2nd/3rd century due to a majority of mission baptised converts, while trinity, biblical canon, ecomenical confessions, sabbath/sunday, easter date (based on moon or sun year), christmass (Dies Natalis Solis Invicti), invocation of saints etc. becomes issues of the 4th century - veneration of icons was a 8th century issue, the Pope’s universal jurisdiction 11th century issue, while clerical marriages was a 12th century issue… As such there is not much evidence, that the church of the 1st/2nd century teachings and practices closely matched the Roman Catholic teachings and practices. Actually we know, that at least St. Peter was a married man… Does that mean he was a lesser Bishop of Rome, than the present Pope, who supposedly has his jurisdiction from Peter?

@Daniel:
Thanks for commenting
Have you read Michael Coren’s book’s?  He hits all your issues right on the nose and can back it up.
What is your religion or religious affiliation? 
Terms such as “does not seem to be an issue before the 2nd/3rd century” or “becomes issues of the 4th century” offer very little specifics.
What teachings and practices that the church of the 1st/2nd did not closely matched the Roman Catholic teachings and practices?

Beware: there is a difference between a dogma and a discipline. Disciplines can change but not the dogmas.
Actually, it’s the opposite; The extrabiblical authorities do in fact confirm, that the early church and the catholic church had the very same teachings and practices because they were the same church. Their was no such thing as an other Christian church not being in communion with the universal church. You will need to read the writings of Clement(a follower of Peter), irenius, Polycarp and other writers that actually knew the apostles and even our Lord himself and died as martyrs along with the apostles. Have you heard of the “Didache”, the oldest existing apostolic era document? It is stunning.

@Alain: Ï would refer to myself as methodist-salvationist. But due to these confessions being of recent times - less than 250 years old - it is hardly relevant when comparing roman catholicism to the teaching and practices of the early church (apostolic age year 30-130).

I don’t remember that Pope Clement, Irenaeus, Polycarp or “Didache” explicitly mention infant babtism (origen year 248), trinity (Tertullian 216), biblical canon (Marcion 140), ecomenical confessions (Nicaea 325), sabbath/sunday (Emperor Constantine 321), easter date (Nicaea 325), christmass (Clement of Alexandria 200 - May 20th | Sextus Julius Africanus 221 - Dec 25th), invocation of saints (Clement of Alexandria 200 - praying saints | Methodius 305 - invocating virgin mary), veneration of icons (iconoclasm 726), the Papal universal jurisdiction (Photios I of Constantinople 850 - primacy follows imperial capital) or clerical marriages (Elvira 306). As such, there is no contemporary sources nor proving, neither disproving that these were part of the teaching and practices of the early church of the apostolic age - and most of it is not established doctrine before the 4th century. If I’m wrong please correct me and refer to these documents. But these are in fact part of the present roman catholic teaching and practices.

Actually Methodist-salvationist is very relevant compared to the catholic church.. Saying “I would refer myself as a Methodist-salvationist” brings a question. Why do you refer yourself as such?

You do realize that the issues you’re bringing up are classical catholic objections ? And that I shall refute them with biblical and early church support of the apostolic teachings.

You don’t seen to make a difference between what is being the actual doctrine of the church and when it was defined. This is crucial in understand the catholic church teachings, doctrines and traditions from the early church to today’s church. You seen to imply that the dates you are referring to are dates that some catholic invented doctrines. Nothing could be further from the truth. If I rely on your logic., Trinity doesn’t exist since it wasn’t specifically mentioned in the apostolic era nor in scriptures for that matter.  Thinking of it, Why do you reject enfant baptism and accept the doctrine of trinity?

If you don’t remember Irenaeus preaching about enfants bathisim, let me help you. First let see who he was. He was a disciple of Polycarb who was a disciple of St-John the apostle.  This is what we was tought: “He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

“‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]” (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]). The physical evidences can also be found in the engagements in the catacombs of Rome where tombs and names of enfants are found.

I will pass of the teachings of the early church stated by Hippolytus, Origen, Cyprian.

I fail to see how Peter can say that Michael is wrong. Have you checked his statements. I mean really? The holy catholic church and Catholics are your best allies. They will wage war on Gods enemies and are ready to shed their blood for the truth….are you? “Pick up your cross AND FOLLOW ME?  What do you think He (Jesus)meant?  When you cross a person with a crucifix around his neck, be aware that he is your brother in Christ and he will fight & die for Him. As a third degree knight of Columbus, I will support you in all matters of faith and moral tough by our lord Jesus Christ. I will cross sword will any enemies of our lord Jesus Christ our redeemer. But, be aware of what Peter teaches about faith & moral.

In nomine patri et fili spiritu sancte
(In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit)

Pardone me, Alain… But as far as I can see, this Irenaeus quote speaks of the SALVATION of infants… Baptism is not mentioned… The more ancient work Didache only speaks of grown up baptism - thus it is plausible to conclude that infant baptism was not a major issue around 100 CE. But with Origen 248 CE it had become a major issue, since he writes about it… The obvious conclusion is, that the dispute arised in the second half of 2nd century or first half of 3rd century, since Origen explicitly addresses the issue in the midst of 3rd century as the first Apostolic father. Surely Irenaeus would have adressed it explicitly, if it had been a major dispute in his days.

By this, I do not say, that child baptism is right or wrong, only that the issue seems to have emerged when congregations grew from missions into established churces with continous generations of believers.

Actually I have reached the conclusion, that both baptism of infants and baptism of grown ups is according to the Bible, since the Bible does not specify, which practice is right at all - the word used through the new testament does not even imply the amount of water. If the contrary was true, about half of all christians worldwide were baptised with an erroneus baptism, and thus did not live a christian life in obedience of Jesus’ command of baptism - the consequenses would be enormous - surely God would have assured, that there was no doubt in the Bible, which practice was right, if it was vital to christian life.

The important things is obedience, water and development of a personal belief - not the amount of water or age. We see in NT, that baptism with water, baptism with the Holy Spirit an personal belief is related - but there is examples of different order of events… We have disciples like Johanan Ben Sebadyah, who was baptized by Johanan the Baptist, who did fully understand and believe after resurrection and received the full baptism of the Holy Spirit on pentecost day - Johanan the Baptist was filled with the spirit before his birth - in Cornelius’ house belief and baptism of the Holy Spirit came before baptism with water - and a group received the Holy Spirit exactly, when Rabbi Saul Paulus rebaptised them. The only thing we obviously have not seen is disbelievers baptised with the Holy spirit.

In mission it seems natural to expect repentance and belief first, then baptism of water and Spirit. But in passing belief to the next generations, we baptise first and then educate hoping that belief is born, and God confirms the belief through the annointing of the Holy Spirit. I believe we can agree, that the scandinavian crusader’s practice of siege, attack on and force baptising of heathens in Balticum, and then beheading the protesting persons without education in christian belief was not a valid practice… Scandinavian crusaders supposedly avoided several years in purgatory through this practice… ;-)

@Vito - what happened to:
* Do not kill!
* Love your fellowman as yourself.
* Turn the other cheek.
* Rejoice when you ar persecuted for the sake of my name.
* Put your sword in the sheath, Peter. He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.
* Lift the the Shied of Faith and th Sword of the Spirit, which is God’s word
* Seek not who you can kill, but who you can spare (Knights Templar).

Nowhere in NT we are recommended to run around beheading “enemies of Christ” with steel blades - on the contrary we are expected to be true to Jesus trough persecution and execution, without resisting following his example.

Gratia Domini nostri Iesu Christi et caritas Dei et communicatio Sancti Spiritus cum omnibus vobis. Amen!
2. Chor. 13, 13.

Benedicat tibi Dominus et custodiat te,
ostendat Dominus faciem suam tibi et misereatur tui,
convertat Dominus vultum suum ad te et det tibi pacem. Amen!
Num. 4, 24-26.

@Daniel.  I fail to see your point.  “Crossing sword” also mean standing up in a group of 25 people that all agree one something that is against the teaching of Christ and say NO, you are wrong. Are you ready to be marginalized, tossed aside, ridiculed, stepped on and even die you HIM.  Are you?  Peter teach very little about faith and nothing about moral because when you do it create controversies that very little are ready to live with. Your God did..and they killed him. And you thing it wouldn’t happen to you…..really?

Sorry Vito… I thought you spoke litterally, not figuratively. In that sense, I do “cross swords”, too. Actually, though I don’t fully agree with Martin Luther, I say with him: “Here I stand, and I cannot do anything else.” If I get the choice between accepting pointless doctrines with no grounds in the Bible or death, I prefer dieing in my faith. If I get the choice between renouncing my faith in Jesus or death, I prefer dieing in my faith. I do not seek martyrdom, but I cannot live a life in hipocracy, pretending that I have accepted pointless doctrines or renounced my faith. I pray, that my faith will not be put at trial this way, but If it be God’s will, it is my hope, that by his grace I will be able to stand through it.

I have already had a share of being marginalized, tossed aside and ridiculed; it is my prayer, that I can continue rejoicing, when I get a further share. The way things develop in the “civilized” western world,  I suspect that we will see direct persecution in near future, though I hope, that I am mistaking.

Well said Daniel
Indeed, Their will come a time when our faith will be tested and put to trial as you pointed out. Being tosted aside,redicules and rejected will be the least of our worries. No one seek martyrdom but it will happen.
Definitly, prayers brings graces to overcome evil on all aspect of this last battle between good and evil, Your armour is your prayers and submission to the will of our jesus Christ is the only way to win your place at the end. The Peter Younggren ministries never ever talk about this dimenssions of salvation and show very little advices.
Good luck
May God shed all the graces on you and your love ones and may the angles and the saints accompagny you on your journey.

Hi Daniel
Your decision in believing in enfant baptism is logic. And actually, enfant baptism is in the scriptures. One just need to look for it. Although I fail to see the relevancy of Irenaeus not being specific about enfant baptism and the reality of it in his writings. One could always argue that the sacred scriptures are not specific on adults baptism only. That’s were a three fold structure is necessary: Sacred scriptures, sacred Tradition and the magistarium of the church(teachings). None of the early Christian writers are specific in words on all teachings handed down by the apostles and that include enfant baptism. When you take the scriptures, the early Christian & fathers and the practices of the time(traditions) combined, you have a very clear view of the early practices and teachings of God’s church.

Bear a mind that the new covenant is a fulfillment of the old one. Jesus did come here to abolish the old laws but to complete it, to fulfill it. And that’s why you see some practices and disciplines in the church where some Jewish laws and traditions are alive. Surely one can see the relation between the circumcision (baptism) of infants in the pre-apostolic Jewish laws and the baptism of water and spirit of infants in the Christian dogmas of the post apostolic era.

The baptism of Our Lord by John the Baptist was not a Christian one, He was baptized in the water and the Spirit, which descended upon Him in the form of a dove. His baptism was a royal anointing of the Son of David (Jesus) conferred by a Levite (John the Baptist) to reveal Christ to Israel, as it was foreshadowed in 1 Kings 1:39 when the Son of David (Solomon) was anointed by the Levitical priest Zadok.

And that brings another question: What do we make about the teachings of our Lord and the apostles such as in John 3:5, where Jesus says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”  Did Peter baptized Cornelius family with the holy spirit only?? Did he really?  How do we know that? Surely peter is aware of his master’s teachings. The same peter who supposedly baptised that household with the spirit only also said “can anyone forbid water for baptizing these people?( Acts 10:47) .  The eunuch recognizes the necessity of water for his baptism. Water and baptism are never separated in the Scriptures.
I congratulate you on your logical view of enfant baptism.
God bless

Michael really does have it right. Historically, Jesus created the Catholic Church and NO other. He made His covenent with and through IT and NO other. The Catholic Church is in itself the primary means of grace and salvation. The Catholic Church is the one Jesus instituted Himself of which He said I will be with you until the end of time. To continue, “To you I give the keys to the kingdom” etc. He did NOT give this power to any other denomination. It was also the Catholic Church that fought off deviant heresies like arianism, and the multitudes of gnosticism. The Catholic Church alone kept the deposit of faith alive and in tact through the centuries. Jesus said,“not even the gates of hell shall prevail against IT”. The Pastors commentary above is simply wrong. This is because he is blinded by his loss of biblical tradition, history, and the temptation of using the Bible as if it was written in the 1500’s. The Bible, when used as if it is a magisterium, becomes interpreted and used in a multitude of ways. Who has the final say of what it means. Why is there literally thousands and thousands of types of Protestants? This is clearly because they have no authoritative way of detecting what the Holy Spirit means about unity and truth. Clearly it is not scripture alone,(this doctrine not found anywhere in the bible by the way), has been responsible for divisions that our Savoir prayed would not happen. “That they may be one”. So Michael Coran really does have right. Jesus gave us the Catholic Church to be His voice of unity, and final authority on the planet. That is why it has sacred tradition, teachings and proclamtions. Jesus gave it the power and the promise of the Holy Spirit which will leads to all truth. The Catholic Church was the only church to receive this promise directly from the Lord. When you see the scriptures properly there is NO doubt it was given this from the beginning. All other protestant denominations were made by man. They did not receive that direct command to go out to the world, teach in His name, and forgive sins. Only the Catholic Church did. This is simply true. The Protestant Church as good as many of them are, laid claim to these promises much, much later in history largley due to the theologies Luther and Calvin and the cultural move to rationalism, and individualism which rejected auhority and still does. Luther(the individualist) changed the bible itself to suit his OWN views. He wanted a personal individual faith without the Church Jesus created. This theological flaw has divided and wounded the body of Christ since the 1500’s. (“That all may be one”) One day protestantism will find it’s way back to the Catholic Church like many Anglicans and Lutherans already have. Then we will be able to authentically approach the throne of God as one body in Christ free of the divisions that Christ never intended. Thanks Michael for a well written and thought out work.

The very first church was the church in Jerusalem, not in Rome. Even when the persecution came and the people fled from Jerusalem, the apostles stayed in Jerusalem. If you want to point to an original first church, you should be looking at a church based out of Jerusalem.

The original apostles were overseers of many different churches that started, not just the church in Rome. There was no special covenant made with just the Roman Catholic church. The Roman church was one of many churches in those days and had no exclusive status from the other churches. Both Peter and Paul were overseers of the church in Rome as well as being overseers of other churches.

The church of Rome is not even mentioned in the Book of Revelation as being one of “the seven churches”. If it was so “ultra special”, I’m sure there would have been at least one reference in the Bible to Rome being “the” church to follow. Instead it is written: “For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus” (1Thessalonians 2:14) Rome is not in Judea.

No Suzy. Your not correct. Peter was the first Pope first resided in Jeruselem and then went to Rome. The Catholic Church began with Peter not a place and HE was its head under Jesus. The early church made Rome the center of the christain faith after the desturcution of Jersulem and it stayed that way until the Reformers broke away from it and “created” their own versions of church and institution and are still doing it. Remember the Catholic Church gave the world the scriptures in the first place, and Jesus gave the Church the power to teach with authority(Magisterium).The bible is NOT the only authority of Christianity. There is NO SOLO Scriptura (by scripture alone) mentioned anywhere in the Bible. The HOly Spirit continues to use the Catholic Church to say what truth is and is not through the use of Faith and Reason (Fidest et Ratio.) Think of morality and evil of abortion and homosexual lifestyles etc. The Catholic Church opposses these but many, many protestants do not. Who is interpreting correctly?) Protestants have as many interpretations for scripture as there are protestant denominations. Your comment demonstrates this. AND it is special because it alone is the Church Jesus created and it alone is the one He commissioned to teach in his name. Rome is just a place the Church is. Peter is the true vicar of Christ and upon this this Rock Jesus built His objective truth Chruch, not the subjective interpretaions constantly seen in the thousands of types of Protestantism. I ask you with these enormous numbers of Protestant expressions,  can you seriously believe that this is what Jesus wants? Does Jesus want you and I and everyone else to privately interpret scripture and his continual work in the world subjectively? By Should there not be someone, some body of diciples that are faithful to Him and who have the authority to say conclusively what srcipture means for all objectively? = The Catholic Church. ( By the way no Protestant chruch is mentioned in the bible right. Because those amny churchs did not come into being untill the 1500’s. BUT the Catholic church existed before the scriptures were formulated didn’t it? And the Catholic Church, particularly with St. Jerome, put together the fisrt Cannon (Scripture) by the 600’s. These scriptures are what YOU are quoting. (Interesting eh) 

If you use the Bible and then use your power to reason, put them together and read the teaching of the Catholic church. You will probably end up Catholic. The truth of it will convince you to refrain from literalism and fundamentalism and really see what the Lord intended.
God Bless

Suzy,  That would bring many questions for you to answer

Yes, Judea was the place were our lord spent most of His earthly ministry. On what base do you affirm that since Jesus spent many time in Jerusalem that this place is therefore and will ever be the base of his church The problem with your interpretation of this theology is you place yourself a limit on what actually was tough, believes and written in the early church era.

It is an undeniable fact that Jesus established a church, not churches. A one, holy, universal and apostolic church. If you assume that because Jesus based most of his activities in Jerusalem that everything need to come from their, I suggest you read the writings of the early christians(those who knew our lord and the apostles).

Our lord did say “You are Peter and on this rock I will built my church” Tell me, It was town was He when he said that? The kicker is what He said to Peter thereafter:” And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” What is that suppose to mean? Isn’t Jesus the head of the church? Why would he give such power to a frail men, a men that actually denied him 3 time. Why such power to a men? A men that brought the church from Jerusalem(that place you claim the church to belong) to Antioch and them to Rome. Why did he do that. Read it up. I all their.

You do know that there is as much writings about Peter in Rome them Julius Cesar in Rome

God bless

Paul-Peter was not a Pope, at least not the way Popes have been for centuries. After many years the Roman church(which had grown to become a large church) became a central focus and around that time the term “Pope” first came into being. It is however not part of Jesus’ teachings for one person to be a “Pope”. Jesus had 12 apostles and did not change that number after his resurrection. If Peter was a “Pope”, then you should see some unique kind of recognition being given to him by the others. However, in the Bible, you’ll see that no one ever looked up to Peter as a “sole Pope” or “vicar” or as a sole final authority. The Holy Spirit spoke and worked through Peter but also through others, including Paul. [Acts 13:9-11]In [Galatians 2:11], Paul actually rebuked Peter and wrote how Peter was acting incorrectly towards the Gentiles- “When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he stood condemned…”

No one ever called any of the apostles “Pope Peter” or “Apostle Mark”, “St. John”, not even a term like “Brother James”. That is because titles are against Jesus’ teachings: “But be ye not called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.”[Matthew 23:8-11] The R.C. church is of course not the only denomination that does not adhere to this teaching of Jesus. The apostles were all addressed by their first names and made their decisions as a group. Each individual church had an overseer or bishop but they were all under the authority of the 12 apostles (not under just one “Pope”). They addressed the other people as their “brothers” and “sisters”. Peter is not mentioned in the Bible as being in Rome but in Jerusalem, although it also mentions he was in Samaria (preaching in many Samaritan villages), in Lydda, in Joppa, in Caesarea. When Paul wrote to the church of Rome, (the book of Romans) he never even mentioned Peter or said anything to the people about Peter. Rather he simply says “To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be His holy people.”

Paul was a Jew, but he had Roman citizenship so we see why God chose Paul to preach in Rome. Paul wrote [Gal.2:7-8]” on the contrary they recognized that I (Paul) had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised(the Gentiles), just as Peter had been to the circumcised(the Jews). For God who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles.”  So, primarily it was the apostle Paul at Rome although the early church fathers wrote that towards the end Peter was also at Rome.

Paul wrote to the church in Corinth about this issue saying,  “One of you says ,“I follow Paul”; another “I follow Apollos”; another “I follow Cephas”; still another “I follow Christ”. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?”....“I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly…...no more boasting about human leaders! All things are yours, whether Apollos or Paul or Cephas…and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God.” [1Cor.1:14,3:21-3] As you can see, Paul did not consider Peter “the head under Jesus”.

The error that so many make as shown above can be in the protestant idea of sola scriptura. (scripture alone) The bible is not a “paper pope” or a magisterium without a Pope. The term by scripture alone is not found anywhere in the bible. The apostles left behind them sucessors or bishops to carry on the traditions and preserve the faith. Jesus left these the Holy Spirit who guided the church throughout history. The authors of the New Testament, understood there was only one church, and the council in Nicea declared that it is “one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic church” in 381. Prior to this Ignatius of Antioch in 110 AD said “were the bishop is let the congration gather,just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” This Catholic Church continued to defeat the Gnostics, the Montanists, Donatists, and many others preserving the faith and the teachings till this day. These heretical groups thought that they were true christians. The wanted to break off into false ideas and doctrines.
Here is the point. The church was created apostolic. This means that the only church that was created by Jesus for over 1500 years held authority to teach and interpret the scriptures. The Pope as a successor of Peter. Jesus laid this tradition as his foundation. See Mt 16:17-19, Jn 21:15-17, Lk:22:32. There are more, however suffice it to say that the term title of Pope does not appear “literally” does not mean at all that Peter was not chosen to be the leader of the church. He was. “though art Peter and upon this rock…” The divine institutin of the papacy is a continuous work of the Holy Spirit. This continuous work is called tradition. It is not static not did it stop when the reformers were created and began to take the bible literally. Thank God for this! From the start to now the spirit has kept the catholic church free from error in faith and morals. (unlike many many non catholic communities) This is because Jesus promised that “His Spirit would be with you and not even the gates of hell shall prevail against it, and lo I will be with you till the end of time”. The Vicar of Christ began with Peter and continues due to apostlic succession and the living tradition of the church guided by the Holy Spirit. So it is not from scripture alone that the church has its certainty about what has been revealed but from the certainty of the Spirit and the people of God. The magisterium of the catholic church is charged with the job of interpreting scripture definitively and to act as therfore the servant of the word in concert with the living tradition. Thus as history shows, and what God has shown, Jesus and the apostles left behind successors or bishops, men with a mission and the authority to teach. They accomplished this by Tradition, Scripture, and the Church. These are all active in the history and the present Catholic Church else the scourage and threat of divisions would ensue.

Suzy
It’s not the catholic church that came up with the notion of peter being the “first pope” or the person God entrusted His Church to.  It is his the Lord & savior Jesus Christ.  Our Lord in fact said to Peter(not Peter Youngren) “ You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church.  I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Why would God entrusted His church to one men to shepherd over? Why such “power” to loose or bound to one men.
……”  What,  you think that God never ever entrusted his authority to some men???  The problem with the modern notion that the holy spirit reveals the truth,  indidually, to all without considering the typography between to OT and the NT is the lack of logic in it. Even though the holy spirit is the provider of truth, how have we ended up with thousands of different Christian denominations and millions of individual, being their own infallible little popes who ALL attest that the holy spirit told then the truth. There is one truth. How can that be?  Simple, the rejection of the authority or the magistarium of a church in post apostolic area to suit the need of other them God. That’s basically it.  If you have no “body of authority” to decide what interpretation is good or not, you end up withy the mess we have today.

Of course the church have grown to a worldwide church, a universal church, from a handful of people being martyred to 1.2 billion today, still with some being martyred. That’s what God wanted..A true, holy, universal, and apostolic church. Running a church with 12 equally authoritative people is illogical and doesn’t make any sense. Even with the bible not being specific about the word “pope, papa” everytime the apostles are listed, guess who’s comes first? Everytime. You might also want to read the writings of the first Christians. Very revealing, even when Paul rebukes Peter. Why would God chose someone who wanted to destroy His church? An exercusionner? Probably for the same reason He chose Peter, a person who denied Him 3 time, to lead his flock.

As for the calling of no one “Father”, I sure hope you’re not insinuating that the bible is in errors and contradicting itself and I do hope you consider the scriptures as the inspired word of God therefore without errors . If I follow your logic, it seems you are running to your eternal lost if you ever call your biological father a “father”. You logic also put the   apostles Paul, James, Stephen in error with Jesus’s teaching when they can called Abraham, Jacod or David their “fathers”.  Stephen ,at this death by stoning called his percesutor, fathers. Am I to not call some spiritual leaders “father”? The early church seen to think so. Your notion of prohibiting anyone to call someone “Father” is a very resent one. It was basiclly created to undermined the church. Again,  if I follow your logic, I guess the angle Gabriel goes against Jesus’s teaching by calling David his father. Jesus also goes against his own teaching by calling David his Father. You fail to consider the context of the matter.

As for Peter not being the head of the church. Your interpretation of what Paul actually thought is baseless. On the contrary, Paul very much considers Peter as head of the church… or pope.  Peter being the pope doesn’t means he’s flawless. That’s why peter was rebuked but at the end peter still drop the mamer on the matter. In that,  while Peter’s actions were wrong, his teachings were all the while correct.

I am so happy that there is an explanation regarding this book…thank you Peter. I left the Catholic church a little over 10 years ago. The traditions of men nullify the Word and make it of none effect (Matthew 15:6). The Catholic church is not unique in religious traditions, although it may have amassed more of them because it was the “first” church. I don’t believe I belong to any “one” denomination anymore, I am a follower of Jesus Christ. And anyone that believes that they follow Christ, is part of THE Body, whether they be Jew or Greek, slave or free.

Thank You Jesus for the too-good-to-be-true news of Grace!

Vito-I was just looking at a website called Jesus-is-saviour.com and their many arguments against Catholicism(Roman), which prompted me to reply to you. Regarding Peter and the Scripture Matthew 16:18-19, “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church;”

If that meant Peter was being declared “the head” then why does it say in Matthew 16:23-“Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.” Jesus picked a man to be the sole head who Jesus said was a stumbling block to him and did not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns? No, in fact the Bible says that while Peter is certainly an important apostle, James, Cephas (Peter) and John were “esteemed as pillars”. Three of them, not just one. Never in the Scriptures do we see Peter as being treated as the sole “vicar of Christ”. Jesus is the cornerstone(Ephesians 2:20)

Then in Mark 10:35-45 we see James and John asking Jesus that they be allowed to sit at Jesus’ right and left hand in glory. That would have been unthinkable if Peter had been declared to be the head. Did Jesus say “No, that is for Peter” No-he stated to all of them, including Peter, that “those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them and their high officials exercise authority over them. NOT so with you. Instead, whoever wants to be great among YOU must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.” So, there was never an idea of “lordship” or of one man being over the others but rather all 12 apostles were to serve each other.

From the website I posted above: “The Apostle Paul distinctly informs us that Peter was not in Rome in 65 A.D.—even though Catholics say he was. Paul said: “Only Luke is with me” (II Tim. 4:11). The truth becomes very plain. Paul wrote to Rome; he had been IN Rome; and at the end wrote at least six epistles from Rome; and not only does he never mention Peter, but at the last moment says: “Only Luke is with me.” Peter, therefore, was never Bishop of Rome! Near 45 A.D., we find Peter being cast into prison at Jerusalem (Acts 12:3, 4). In 49 A.D., he was still in Jerusalem, this time attending the Jerusalem Council. About 51 A.D., he was in Antioch of Syria where he got into differences with Paul because he wouldn’t sit or eat with Gentiles. Strange that the “Roman bishop” would have nothing to do with Gentiles in 51 A.D.! Later in about 66 A.D., we find him (Peter) in the city of Babylon among the Jews (I Pet. 5:13). Remember that Peter was the Apostle to the circumcised. Why was he in Babylon? Because history shows that there were as many Jews in the Mesopotamian areas in Christ’s time as there were in Palestine. It is no wonder we find him in the East. Perhaps this is the reason why scholars say Peter’s writings are strongly Aramaic in flavor, the type of Aramaic spoken in Babylon. Why of course! Peter was used to their eastern dialect. At the times the Catholics believe Peter was in Rome, The Bible clearly shows he was elsewhere.”

I believe in holiness but from some of the Roman Catholics I know, that quality is not there. Their infant baptism and confirmation did not help them. They have no interest in the Scriptures or in going to church, except for weddings, funerals and holidays. When I try to talk to them about the Bible, they have no interest-just in talking about work, sports, money, trips, trivial things but they like to get out the booze! They have not “fallen away”. They are under a false hope or belief. They believe they can live their life whatever way they feel like and still go to heaven as long as they call the priest and have last rites. The Bible clearly says that those who are “born again” can not continue to sin. The Bible says “Whoever says “I know him” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person.” (1 John 2:4) “If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth.” (1John 1:6) and (Rev. 21:8) says that all liars will go to the lake of burning sulphur. We have to be followers, doers of the Word, in Jesus’ teachings to be in Christ. As it is written: (1 Corinthians 15:2) “By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.”

My comment about the use of the Title “Father” as being unScriptural is not recent. It is as old as Jesus’ teachings. Just because the RC church has been doing it for a very long time does not make it right. Again, you won’t find the apostles using “Father”“Rev.” “Canon” “Bishop” “Apostle” “Brother” “Pastor"as a title. They referred to each other by their common first names although their position as an apostle or bishop is mentioned. As you can see, it is not only the RC church that has errors in this way.

I believe in an apostolic movement where leaders are chosen by the Lord, not by men. We see in the early church that there was a special gifting given to the apostles “Acts 2:43-Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles.” Acts 5:12-“The apostles performed many signs and wonders among the people.” Paul wrote-2 Corinthians 12:12-
“I persevered in demonstrating among you the marks of a true apostle, including signs, wonders and miracles.” Yes, the mark of a true apostle includes signs, wonders and miracles. Evangelists and men like Stephen, who was not an apostle,(Acts 6) also had signs and wonders. Apostles do more as they are also responsible to God for teaching correctly, praying, overseeing the churches. Does the RC church have a lineage of apostles with “signs, wonders and miracles”? Why not? The RC church certainly accepts that healings have continued but why not with their leadership?