Answering more objections to Catholic Teaching

De Maria November 18, 2012 at 1:35 AM

Why didn’t the apostles appoint more than 12 then at the appointment of Judas?

They didn’t need any more.

There were plenty of people to choose from.

And many were considered. But only one was chosen because that is all they needed at the time.

And if there are “offices” for the apostles, such like the Petrine Papacy, why is it that the other 11 do not have a single person sitting in it like the petrine succession?

1. Because St. Peter is the only one to whom it was promised (Matt 16:18-19).
2. The other 11 also have successors. But that number has grown as the Church has grown.

In other words, can it be said that there really is 12 perpetual offices when Peter’s is the only one that can be filled by one person whereas the others can be filled by millions?

1. There are only 12 perpetual offices because Christ filled twelve offices. These twelve are represented in heaven:
Revelation 21:14
And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

2. But the twelve, including St. Peter, appointed many other Bishopricks in the Church as the Church grew.

And even if so, why not extend this right to many others in the book of Acts? There were 3,000 on the day of pentecost. There was about 120 who went in and out among the disciples with Jesus and saw him eat and saw him raised from the dead, why were none of these selected as bishops?

Who said they weren’t? If you read the lives of the Saints, you will find amongst them some who walked with the disciples and with Jesus, and they were appointed officers of the Church in various positions.

Only 12? Cmon, the middle east is much bigger than that.

C’mon what? Did they remain 12?

No, I think that if Catholicism were true, all 120 (or most) disciples would have become bishops right there on the spot, for all met the qualifications.

Catholicism is true. And there was no need for 120 Bishops at that time.

And you might say, “Well the apostles were not dead yet! Therefore, there was only need for 1 since the apostolic college is only 12!!” and yet I say to you that it did not remain 12, and why not?

Because the Church grew.

We simply do not have 12 men succeeding perfectly from that point onward, such would be the construction if all these things were true as you say.

1. All those things are true.
2. You don’t know whether there are twelve offices which still exist. The only one we follow is the Roman See. But it is quite possible that other Sees maintain their own histories back to the Apostles.

It is only logical to say that if there is an “office” which belongs to only 12 men, and that others would fill this “office” 1 by 1, then there would be a 12 man succession, at least in the beginning.

Why? From the beginning, Jesus commanded the Church to make disciples of the world. Therefore, they knew that they needed to appoint Bishops as necessary.

Or are you saying the other 11 apostles went apostate in the beginning?

What gives you that idea? It sounds as though you are making a straw man that you can knock down. I never said such a thing.

And only Peter and Clement were right?

1. Sts. Peter and Clement did not write in a vacuum. Do you find anyone who disputes their authority in the Church?
2. Or are you being cynical about the doctrine of Papal infallibility? The fact is that the Papal See has not fallen into heresy at any point in history. Whereas, many others, have.

In addition, if Matthew 16 was the foundational text which grounds the installation of the Petrine dynasty, why was this not common knowledge? It simply was not common knowledge.

It was common knowledge and it permeates the Scriptures.

You say that the disciples did not have to understand anything that Jesus said? And that only afterward when their hearts and minds were illuminated by the Holy Spirit would they be able to understand?

Another straw man.

1. It is clear in Scripture that the Apostles and disciples did not understand many things that Jesus said:
Matthew 15:16
And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?

2. But that doesn’t mean that they did not understand anything at all which He taught.
3. So, obviously, you are making a straw man argument which you can knock down. But you are not making this argument in good faith.

Well, that would go against what Steve Ray said.

1. If you were arguing logically, it might.
2. If that argument were in good faith, it might.
3. But it is obvious that you either misunderstand the Scripture concerning that how much the Apostles understood or you are arguing in bad faith. Therefore there is no challenge to Steve Ray’s explanation there.

According to him, any Jew who heard this issue of “rock” , “keys of the kingdom”, and “binding and loosing”, and the “gates of hell” would have Immediately thought in connection to Isaiah 22 and the idea of succession.

Obviously, that would be counted as hyperbole. Obviously, there were probably many Jews who would not make the connection. But certainly the educated Jews, would.

Why would the disciples simply not know this?

Who said that they didn’t? Read what I said with understanding. You are reading my words with the intent of twisting them.

Moreover, Catholic apologists go to great lengths to demonstrate Peter’s leadership in the book of Acts as a proof that Peter is the first pope. But I ask, if no one knew about this, how could they have acted in this way?

Hm? You just answered your own question. They did know, therefore they acted in that way. More importantly, God inspired St. Peter to speak out on behalf of the Church in order to show YOU and all who read the Scriptures whom He had appointed.

In other words, was Peter’s leadership an arbitrary selection from the 12 or did they all know unanimously that Peter was in charge?

1. Christ appointed him before all of them. They were all present when Christ appointed him the Rock.
2. They were all present when He appointed him the Shepherd of the Church.
3. They were all present when the Holy Spirit inspired him to speak for the Church.

Why do you need more?

If they knew, then they understood this Matthew 16 text. Therefore, your argument that the disciples did not need to understand what Jesus was saying (either right away or early on from the point).

I’m not sure what you just said, but it almost sounds like you validated what I said. Yes, therefore, my argument is proven true.

And as I was saying earlier, if the apostles knew that Jesus founded a dynastic leadership of the Church in Rome, why did some of the early church fathers not attribute the superiority to Rome by Peter alone, but also Paul?

The building of the Church has always been appointed to Sts. Peter and Paul in Rome. It is a fulfillment of the pagan myth. We even have a feastday for Sts. Peter and Paul commemorating the fact that they both built the Church in Rome.

But St. Peter remains the Rock upon which Christ built the Church.

Also, with respect to the end time judgement, which I think you were alluding to when you said “You might be glad now, but you will not be in the end”, (which I thought by the way was rude and a sectarian pop-shot that you only find in the cults)

Just giving you the facts. You might be glad to be outside the Church of God now, but you won’t be in the end. Do you believe that doctrine is important? Or not? Read the Scripture.
Galatians 1:8
King James Version (KJV)
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

God is going to judge us according to our works.

God is going to judge everything we do:
Matthew 12:36
But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

James 3:1
My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.

You pass yourself off as a master, but you are teaching false doctrine. No, you won’t be glad then.

Jesus is returning to collect only a pure bride, those who practiced righteousness. People who did not deny themselves and pick up their cross and lose their lives for the sake of Christ and his gospel are the only ones who will merit eternal lives. In other words, those who bore the marks of the Spirit, righteousness, joy, gentleness, peace, love, patience, longsuffering, kindness, and who abstained from the works of the flesh: greed, selfishness, anger, malice, loss of self-control, sexual immorality.

Corect.

There are many protestants out there that shine with the works of righteousness that you cannot deny that Christ was born and nurtured inside of them.

Never did. But they won’t be saved by faith alone. They will stand before the judgment seat of Christ like all the rest of us.

In fact, I was born and raised Roman Catholic and I never even met a true disciple of Jesus until I met other christians from other denominations.

Can you read men’s hearts?

I have met a few Catholics who really love Christ (by obedience and the expression thereof), so I am not saying all Catholics do not obey, but it is hard to find; it is sad to say.

God is our Judge. Not you nor any Protestant. We don’t work to please you. Nor to say what you want us to say.

Also, one last thing. I am wondering how you would respond to the protestant argument of John 3. Jesus said we do not know where the Spirit comes from and where it is going, but we only see the effects of the Spirit. It would seem that the Papacy directs the Spirit and tells the Spirit where to go and where it can work.

Jesus was speaking of Baptism. There is one Baptism. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit. But Jesus tied that Baptism of the Holy Spirit to water when He said, “you must be born of water and spirit.” But then He said, “the Spirit blows where it will”. Meaning that God is not bound by His Sacraments.

An example is St. Cornelius. God showed St. Peter that St. Cornelius was already justified by the Baptism of the Spirit. Therefore, St. Peter did not withhold water.

What does all of that mean to us, Catholics?
1. Baptism is an outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
2. It is also a washing of water.
3. Jesus tied the Baptism of the Holy Spirit to the washing of water in the Sacrament. Therefore, we are justified in Baptism.
4. However, God is the Judge of all mankind, He can justify whomever He finds righteous, whenever He wants to do so.

Does this confirm the doctrine of the Protestants? By no means. The Protestants claim to be saved by faith alone and claim to know they are saved. But they will be judged by their faith and works at the judgment, just as we all shall.

Does this nullify the Sacrament of Baptism? By no means. Because the individual, unless he has a special revelation by God, does not know he is justified by the Holy Spirit. Nor does babbling in tongues guarantee that such a justification has taken place.

I hope that answers your question.

Sincerely,

De Maria