THE SUPREMACY OF THE POPE AND ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

POPESPLAINING - quick sufficient arguments simplified for children.

Updated in 5-12-2024.

 

Goal: prove that God and the Bible tell us to submit to the Pope and the Catholic Church.

 

WHO THIS IS FOR: anyone who wants to follow the Bible or Jesus, but does not submit to the Pope and to the Roman Catholic Church. Also: Catholics who want to gain knowledge or refute heretics/non-Catholics).

 

INDEX:

• ARGUMENT 1 - THE CHURCH IS FOUNDED UPON PETER. PETER IS THE STEWARD (THE SECOND-IN-COMMAND) - PETER IS THE NEW (AMPLIFIED AND PROTECTED) ELIAKIM
• ARGUMENT 1.1 - PETER=ROCK
• ARGUMENT 1.2 - PETER, THE ROCK AND STEWARD, UNTIL THE CONSUMMATION OF THE WORLD
• ARGUMENT 1.3 - JESUS IS THE CORNERSTONE AND ULTIMATE FOUNDATION, BUT THE CHURCH IS FOUNDED UPON THE ROCK WHICH IS PETER
• ARGUMENT 1.4 - Jewish Tradition. Keys, binding, and rock
• ARGUMENT 2 - PETER FEEDS THE SHEEP
• ARGUMENT 3 - THE CHURCH MUST BE UNITED; PETER (THE POPE) KEEPS THE CHURCH UNITED; HE IS THE POINT OF UNITY; THE POPE IS INFALLIBLE
• ARGUMENT 3.1 - THE CHURCH IS AN INSTITUTION
• ARGUMENT 4 - THE BIBLE IS NOT THE ONLY AUTHORITY; THE BIBLE AFFIRMS THE AUTHORITY THE APOSTLES (+THEIR SUCCESSORS) AND ECUMENICAL COUNCILS
• ARGUMENT 4.1 - SUCCESSION
• ARGUMENT 4.2 - LIVING AUTHORITY; SOURCES OF AUTHORITY, NOT LIMITED BY THE SCRIPTURES
• ARGUMENT 4.3 - GOD GUIDES THE APOSTLES AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
• ARGUMENT 4.4 - BINDING AND LOOSENING
• ARGUMENT 5 - CHURCH FATHERS AND ECUMENICAL COUNCILS - THE ENTIRE CHURCH FOLLOWED THE POPE IN THE FIRST MILLENNIUM
• ARGUMENT 6 - THE CANONIZATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
• ARGUMENT 6.1 - THE OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS AND THE SEPTUAGINT. THE APOSTLES USED (AND SO VALIDATED) THE SEPTUAGINT
• ARGUMENT 7 - FURTHER DESTRUCTION OF SOLA SCRIPTURA. JESUS AND THE APOSTLES ARE AGAINST SOLA SCRIPTURA. TRADITION IS AUTHORITATIVE.
• ARGUMENT 8 - THE WORD «CATHOLIC» IN THE BIBLE. EKKLESIA KATH HOLĒS
• ARGUMENT 9 - REGARDING IMPECCABILITY. CAN THE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH SIN?!
• EXTRA 9.1 - REGARDING GALATIANS 2:11-14 (Paul VS Cephas?!)
• ARGUMENT 10 - THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS
• MISCELLANEOUS NOTES - Rites, Mediator, Unity, Typologies, The Holy Spirit and Divine Guidance.
• NOTES - CHURCH FATHERS VS ECUMENICAL COUNCILS?! CONTRADICTING DOCTRINE?!
• MINI-ARGUMENT: HAVING FAITH IN GOD MEANS TO DO THE WORKS THAT HE WILLS. “ONCE SAVED, ALWAYS SAVED” CONTRADICTS THE BIBLE
• MINI-ARGUMENTS - IDOLATRY, REPETITIVE PRAYER, AND CALL NO MAN FATHER??
• NOTES - Many churches?! “Catholic” VS Constantine. SAINT IGNATIUS!
• NOTES - Red herrings refuted: Succession is a one-time thing?! Bishop vs elder?! The Church of Rome had no Bishop in the early times, but instead an equal group?! Pope Clement was not the Bishop of Rome/the Pope?! Saint Peter was never at Rome?! Peter was the bishop of Antioch so this nullifies the Papacy?!? Ignatius is not trustworthy?!
• Notes - “Radtrads” (false Catholics): sedevacantists and nazis are not Catholics.
• Notes - Destruction of islam and mormonism
• MINI-ARGUMENT - SCIENCE VS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH?! DESTRUCTION OF ATHEISM
• MINI-ARGUMENT - EASTERN «ORTHODOX»? HETERODOX! THE FILIOQUE
• QUICK FACTS - DESTROY ANY HERETIC, EASY SUPER TIPS!!!!!!
• More arguments (small yet destructive) by me (Inquisidor Lusitano)
• Saint Thomas of Aquinas - The Rock: Peter, his confession, or Christ?
  
• Adadzie's Compilation of proofs for Petrine Primacy and the Papacy in the Bible
• ARGUMENT - THE INTERCESSION OF THE SAINTS (plus version 2)
• ARGUMENT - THE HOLY MARY MOTHER OF GOD. SINLESS (IMMACULATE CONCEPTION), ETERNAL VIRGIN, AND ASSUMED INTO HEAVEN
• NOTE - THERE IS NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

«You just don't know when to stop! Enough is enough!»

«I am [...] ally to good, nightmare to you!»

 

ARGUMENT 1 - THE CHURCH IS FOUNDED UPON PETER. PETER IS THE STEWARD (THE SECOND-IN-COMMAND) - PETER IS THE NEW (AMPLIFIED AND PROTECTED) ELIAKIM

 

Matthew 16:18-19: «And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.»

 

Isaiah 22:22-23: «And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a peg in a sure place: and he shall be for a throne of glory to the house of his father.»

 

In Matthew 16:18-19, Jesus gave to Peter 3 characteristics, Peter: 1. is the (Rock) Foundation; 2. has the Keys of King Jesus; 3. has the power to bind/loose, and heaven agrees with his decisions (so no one can contradict him).
...
The Catholic Church is founded upon Peter. Having the Keys of the Kingdom (Jesus is the King; Jesus gave His Keys to the Pope) means that he has the authority to act in Jesus's name and manage the Church and Kingdom of Jesus, so Peter (and his Successor, the Pope) is at the top of the ecclesiastical pyramid of authority, that God put in place.
...
To conjugate with this: in Isaiah 22:22-23, God gave 3 characteristics to Eliakim that made him the SECOND-IN-COMMAND (the STEWARD) of the kingdom. So these 3 characteristics made him the STEWARD. Also, it's the steward that carries the keys of the king; the steward has full authority over the kingdom, no one is above him, except the king; the steward represents the king.
...
God gave 3 characteristics that made Eliakim the steward (Isaiah 22:22-23); Eliakim: 1. is the (peg) foundation; 2. has the key of the king; 3. has the power to open/close, and no one can contradict him.
REMEMBER, Peter: 1. is the (Rock) Foundation; 2. has the Keys of the King, Jesus; 3. has the power to bind/loose, and heaven agrees with his decisions (so no one can contradict him).

...
Jesus purposely mirrored this and gave all of these 3 characteristics to Peter, and even amplified them, consequently making Peter the Steward of His Kingdom, with much more promises than Eliakim had.

The characteristics Jesus gave to Peter are extremely more meaningful and amplified than those given to Eliakim; not only did Jesus amplify each of the three characteristics, but He also gave more essential characteristics to Peter (and did not give any negative characteristics to Peter that Eliakim was given).

 

*Quick note: conjugating with Isaiah is a bonus; even without the conjugation, Matthew 16:18-19 alone is sufficient to prove the Papacy; each single fact is sufficient:
- Peter carries the Keys of Jesus; keys represent capacity and authority; so Peter is the Chief that Jesus put in place.
- The phrase “binding and loosening” means the capacity to act with authority [read argument 4.4]; Jesus gave full authority to Peter. This phrase, “binding and loosening”, was a legal term referring to the Sanhedrin’s capacity to establish halakah (teach+govern+discipline). Christ transferred this authority to Saint Peter (+other Apostles).
- Ofcourse, Peter is the Rock on which the Catholic Church is built. With this fact alone, all heresy is eliminated. Protestantism appeared in 1500+; false orthodoxy in 1054+; ofcourse, these heresies are not founded upon Peter.
The Catholic Church (following the Pope) was exclusive and alone for the entire first Millennium!... This instantly means that all of the Apostles/their successors/Bishops belonged to the Catholic Church (and it proves that She is the same Church mentioned in the Bible); also it means that the Holy Spirit guided and protected the Catholic Church/Catholicism! And it is the only Church founded upon Peter, in which Peter left his Chair, specifically the Roman Catholic Church!

 

🗝🗝

 

ARGUMENT 1.1 - PETER=ROCK

 

Papias of Hierapolis, Clement of Alexandria, and Irenaeus of Lyons all record that the Gospel according to Saint Matthew was originally written in aramaic. Also, the presence of aramaic words and phrases in the greek text (a few examples: Matthew 5:22, 27:46; Mark 5:41, 7:34, 14:36; Luke 16:9; John 1:42; 1 Corinthians 16:22) indicates at the MINIMUM that Jesus spoke in aramaic; and at the MAXIMUM, that the original Gospel accounts were firstly written in aramaic. Anyway, the absolute fact is that Jesus spoke in aramaic.

 

The New Testament we have was written in (Koine) Greek, but Jesus spoke in Aramaic when he changed Simon's name to Cephas. [Cephas is a Hellenised version of Kepha (aramaic); Saint John himself taught that Cephas means Rock (=Petros=Peter): John 1:42]. The word "Rock" in aramaic is Kepha; therefore, Cephas is clearly a Hellenised version of Kepha, which means Rock.

 

Even in greek, Simon's name is PETROS (in english: ROCK). The word PETER (PETROS) literally means ROCK:
- "You are PETROS"="You are ROCK"!
- "You are Cephas=Kepha=Petros=Rock!”

 

Comparison of languages:
Peter's name - the default word for “rock”

...
- Aramaic: Kepha [כֵּיפָא] - kepha [כֵּיפָא] (both are exactly the same, the same form and the same gender, as a name or as a standard rock; this is what Jesus said)
*Repeat: in aramaic, «כֵּיפָא» means «ROCK»; Jesus said to Simon: «YOU ARE כֵּיפָא (ROCK), AND UPON THIS כֵּיפָא (ROCK) I SHALL BUILD MY CHURCH!»
*Note: aramaic has no capital or lowercase letters; it's the exact same.
*Note: in aramaic, the gender of this word is basically neutral and the form never changes, whether as a name for someone, or as the common object.
*Note: in Aramaic, "כֵּיפָא" (Kepha) retains the same form regardless of gender. Whether it is used in a context that is feminine, masculine, or neutral, the spelling and form of the word "כֵּיפָא" (Kepha) do not change; it is always the same: this proves that Jesus used the same word כֵּיפָא to refer to Peter and the Foundation of the Church.
*Note: in aramaic "kepha" is a gender-neutral term; aramaic does not distinguish the word "rock" by gender. Aramaic does not have masculine/feminine forms for «kepha»; there is no gender distinction applied to the term as there is in greek. The gender distinction comes from the Greek translation (what Saint Matthew wrote), not from the original aramaic (what Jesus said).
...
- Greek: Petros - petra (same word and meaning, male-female, same root/object; this is the language that the Apostles used to write the Gospel that we currently have, so they translated what Jesus said in aramaic to greek)
*Note: even though both male/female variations have the same meaning, the reasons why in greek the male word Petros is used to refer to Simon are these: the use of “Petros” in Greek for Simon Peter's name is influenced by the fact that: כֵּיפָא (Kepha) is a grammatically masculine noun in Aramaic, in order to preserve the gender of the word that Jesus used (KEPHA does not have feminine or neutral variants; it is treated as masculine in grammatical contexts); not just this, but mainly, also, greek uses gendered nouns that match the gender of the person being referred to; names, titles/positions, and adjectives/qualities are tied directly to a person's gender. Since Simon Peter is a man, "Petros" (masculine) was chosen over "Petra" (feminine), adhering to the linguistic convention that male individuals are referred to with masculine nouns. The gender of the word changes, but the word is still the same. For example: a man must not be called “Patricia”, but instead the male variant of the same word: “Patrick”.
*Note: to irrefutably prove this in a simple way, Saint John wrote that Cephas (Kepha) means Petros (John 1:41). Kepha means Rock; (SAINT JOHN SAID THAT KEPHA MEANS PETROS) so then Petros means Rock (because Kepha=Rock, Kepha=Petros, Petros=Rock). Petra means rock; petra=kepha; petra=petros=rock. So then all of these words mean the same thing: ROCK!
*Note: the greek wordplay in Matthew 16:18 proves that the same word was used in aramaic; the use of the greek words PETROS and PETRA indicates that he was trying to preserve the wordplay that Jesus originally used in aramaic. Since there is no gender distinction in Aramaic for KEPHA, the play on words remains intact. Matthew preserved this by using PETROS and PETRA... The fact that Matthew retained this structure in greek by using two closely related words with the same root proves that Jesus in Matthew 16:18 used a single word for ROCK in aramaic. If Jesus had used different aramaic words for "rock", Matthew would have also used different greek terms to reflect that, which he did not. Matthew, by keeping the same root/word in greek, proves that Jesus in aramaic used the same root/word.
...
- English: Peter - rock ("Peter" is an anglicization of the greek "Petros"; therefore "Peter" is still "Rock")
...
- Portuguese: Pedro - pedra (same word and meaning, male-female, same root/object)
...
- French: Pierre - pierre (the exact same word and meaning, male-female; the french do not play around)

As we can see, between these languages, all languages directly agree that Simon's new name is Rock.
English also agrees, but makes it harder for a common englishman to understand, since english decided to keep this word similar-looking to the greek word, thus the common englishman may not understand what it truly means.
...
Sadly, this simple reason may be the cause that started protestantism. It would make sense, since it is the english that originated protestantism, and many people who speak english tend to be protestant... Meanwhile, the other languages laugh at protestants, because the other languages easily understand that Peter is Rock.

So, for an englishman to correctly understand and interpret the meaning of "Peter", he must study the greek (because "Peter is an anglicization of "Petros", and the New Testament is written in greek); and then, to understand the greek further, he must study the aramaic (since Jesus changed Simon's name to an aramaic word: Kepha, since the Bible itself [John 1:42] clarifies that "Cephas" is the Hellenization of "Kepha", which means "Rock".

 

EXTRA: «THIS ROCK» MEANS PETER

 

"this" (ταύτῃ) in Greek is a demonstrative pronoun!... It specifically points to "rock" (πέτρα), and Peter is Rock! Jesus only identified Peter as the Rock, so there is not even competition!
...
«You are ROCK, and upon *this* ROCK I shall build My Church»
...
«THIS ROCK» does NOT mean «ANOTHER ROCK», it would be a contradiction! It can only refer to the rock being talked about, which is clearly «You (Simon) are Rock»! Those who claim “Jesus is the rock” or “Peter's confession is the rock” are wrong, because Jesus did not identify those as the rock; the identity of the rock given by Jesus is literally only Peter. (And even if hypothetically Jesus were to identify multiple rocks, «this rock» would still be Peter, because it was the only subject being mentioned at the moment of the declaration!). So if there is only one identified rock (Peter), «this rock» can only refer to this only identity.
...
In Greek, the demonstrative pronoun «*THIS* ROCK» (*ταύτῃ*) refers to the immediately preceding **noun** (or the noun that is being discussed), which in this case is «You (Simon) are **ROCK**»

 

🗝🗝

 

ARGUMENT 1.2 - PETER, THE ROCK AND STEWARD, UNTIL THE CONSUMMATION OF THE WORLD

 

Some may claim that God declared that Eliakim's authority and foundation (as the peg) would fade, as if this would mean that Peter's Authority and Foundation would also fade.

Isaiah 22:25 - “In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall the peg be removed, that was fastened in the sure place: and it shall be broken and shall fall: and that which hung thereon, shall perish, because the Lord hath spoken it.”

Although, refuting this is not hard, since this is not even a respectable argument (it reveals that the heretic has not fully read the Bible, and profoundly lacks knowledge). The problem with the one who gives this argument is that he presupposes that everything about Eliakim is transferred to Peter.

 

Firstly, it is a fact that Jesus gave the three characteristics to Peter that result in giving authority and instituting a steward.
Secondly, it is an impossibility that the declaration regarding "the foundation being removed, and that which hung thereon, shall perish" is given to Peter.

Peter (the Rock) is the Foundation of the Church, and if the Foundation is removed, what is constructed upon it shall perish. Jesus declared that the Church and Foundation shall not perish.

God only gave to Peter the characteristics that result in giving authority to make him the Steward; yet God did not give to Peter any characteristic or declaration that would result in a ceasing of authority and foundation.

The simple fact is that God declared that Eliakim's authority would cease, but God Jesus never declared that Peter's authority would cease; on the contrary, He specifically declared and promised to protect and be with Peter (and his Successors, and the Catholic Church...) basically until the consummation of the World, which means: until the very end of Creation.

Matthew 16:18-19 - «And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.»...
...
Repeat: «the gates of hell shall not prevail against it»...
This declaration by Jesus affirms that Peter, as the Rock upon which the Church is built, holds a foundational and enduring role. The assurance that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" includes the Rock (since it is the Foundation of the Church; without the Foundation, the Church would fall/be prevailed by the gates of hell), signifying the Church's resilience and affirming Peter's ongoing authority under Christ's divine protection. Therefore, since it is a necessity for the Church to be firmly founded upon the Rock, protecting the Church implies and requires that the Rock is protected, since the Rock is the Foundation of the Church.

Matthew 28:19-20 - «Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.»

...
*NOTE: This alone proves Apostolic Succession; the original Apostles all died before the consummation of the World, so this necessarily means that Jesus's promise includes the Successors of the Apostles, so that they can teach and baptize until the consummation of the World! Jesus is with the Apostles and their Successors, so that they teach all nations, ALL DAYS, EVEN TO THE CONSUMMATION OF THE WORLD!
...

This is why I say that Peter is the New (Amplified and Protected) Eliakim.
Peter is the New Eliakim when it comes to being the Steward (2nd-In-Command), but in an amplified and protected way, because the negative declarations were not given, but opposite declarations were given: hell shall never prevail against the Church, the Holy Spirit guides them forever, and Jesus is with them until the consummation of the World!

 

🗝🗝

 

ARGUMENT 1.3 - JESUS IS THE CORNERSTONE AND ULTIMATE FOUNDATION, BUT THE CHURCH IS FOUNDED UPON THE ROCK WHICH IS PETER

 

Some may claim that the Church is not founded upon Peter, but that it is founded upon Jesus. These people claim that Peter is not the rock, and that the rock is Jesus.

 

The word for "cornerstone" in Greek, as used in Ephesians 2:20, is «ἀκρογωνιαῖος» (akrogōniaios). This word is different than "rock" (petra), and has a different meaning.
...
*ἀκρο- (akro-): Prefix meaning "extreme" or "highest."
*γωνία (gōnia): Root meaning "corner."αῖος
*(-aios): Suffix indicating quality or belonging.
- This greek word, «ἀκρογωνιαῖος», literally translates to: “pertaining to the extreme corner”.
...
In Matthew 16:18-19, Jesus did not say that the He shall build His Church upon «ἀκρογωνιαῖος» (akrogōniaios=cornerstone); Jesus said that He would build His Church upon the «πέτρα» (petra=rock), and at the same moment, while directing to Peter, said that Peter is this same word: Kepha=Petros/Petra... Jesus literally renamed Simon to Rock.
...
Premises:
1 - Jesus said that He shall build His Church upon the Rock.
2 - Jesus said that Peter is the Rock.
3 - Therefore, Peter is the Rock upon which the Church of Christ is built!!!!!
...
No one should ever puke blasphemy and claim that Peter is not the Rock, because it is extremely clear that Peter is the Rock.

 

So, Jesus is the ἀκρογωνιαῖος (akrogōniaios), and Peter is the Petros (petra). Jesus said that He would build the Church upon Petra=Rock. Therefore, the Church is built upon Petros=Rock, Kepha.

 

Jesus said:
1- That He would found His Church upon KEPHA/PETRA!
2- That KEPHA/PETRA is literally “you (Simon)”, not the act of Simon confessing or Jesus Himself. Jesus did not say “your confession is KEPHA/PETRA”; Jesus did not say “I am KEPHA/PETROS”.
...
Jesus said: “YOU (Simon) are KEPHA/PETROS=PETRA”.

 

🗝🗝

 

ARGUMENT 1.4 - Jewish Tradition. Keys, binding, and rock

 

«But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees! For you key shut (greek: «kleiete») the kingdom of heaven against people.» (Matthew 23:13)
...
«Jesus said to Peter: “I give to you [singular] the keys (greek: «kleidas») of the kingdom of heaven.”» (Matthew 16:19)

 

“They [the Pharisees] bind (greek: «desmeuousin») heavy burdens on the shoulders of others; but they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to move them.” (Matthew 23:4)
...
“Whatever you (Peter) bind (greek: «deses») on earth will be bound (greek: «dedemenon») in heaven.” (Matthew 16:19)

...

[READ ARGUMENT 4.4 WHICH IS ABOUT BINDING AND LOOSENING!]

Saint Peter is the Foundation Stone of the Church - the jews taught of a Foundation Stone aswell
...
➡️ The “Foundation Stone” (’Eben Shetiyah)
[On the day of Atonement, the High Priest] went through the Sanctuary until he came to 
the space between the two curtains separating the Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies…. When he reached the Ark he put the fire-pan between the two bars. He heaped up the incense on the coals and the whole place became filled with smoke. He came out by the way he went in, and in the outer space he prayed a short prayer. But he did not prolong his prayer lest he put Israel in terror. After the Ark was taken away a stone remained there from the time of the early prophets and it was called “Shetiyah.” It was higher than the ground by three fingerbreadths. On this he used to put… (Mishnah, Yoma [Day of Atonement] 5:2)
...
➡️ The Foundation Stone: the Center of the World
“And it was called Shetiyah [foundation].” A Tanna taught: [It was so called] because from it the world was founded. We were taught in accord with the view that the world was started [created] from Zion on… Rabbi Isaac the Smith said: “The Holy One, blessed be He, cast a stone into the ocean, from which the world then was founded as it is said: ‘Whereupon were the foundations thereof fastened, or who laid the corner stone thereof?’ (Job 38:38). But the Sages said: The world was started [created] from Zion, as it is said… “Out of Zion, the perfection of the world” (Ps 50:2). (Babylonian Talmud, Yoma [The Day of Atonement] 54a-54b)

 

➡️ The Keys Were Kept by the Temple Priests in a Rock
…for although there be four courses of the priests, and everyone of them have above five thousand men in them, yet do they officiate on certain days only; and when those days are over, other priests succeed in the performance of their sacrifices, and assemble together at midday, and receive the keys of the temple (Josephus, Against Apion 2.108).
...
And there was a place there… whereon lay a slab of marble in which was fixed a ring and a chain on which hung the keys. When the time was come to lock up [the Temple Court] he lifted up the slab by the ring and took the keys from the chain. The priest locked [the gates] from inside while a Levite slept outside. When he had finished locking [the gates] he put back the keys on the chain and the slab in its place, put his mattress over it, and went to sleep (Mishnah Middoth 1.9).

 

➡️ The Captain of the Temple and the Keys
Thus also, before the Jews rebellion, and before those commotions which preceded the war [in 67-70 A.D.]… the eastern gate of the inner [court of the] Temple, which was of brass, and vastly heavey, and had been with difficulty shut by twenty men, and rested upon a basis armed with iron… was seen to be opened of its own accord about the sixth hour of the night. Now, those that kept watch in the Temple came hereupon running to the captain of the Temple, and told him of it: who then came up there, and not without great difficulty, and was able to shut the gate again. This also appeared to the vulgar to be a very happy prodigy, as if God did thereby open the gate of happiness. But the men of learning understood it, that the security of their holy house was dissolved of its own accord, and that the gate was opened for the advantage of their enemies. So these publicly declared that this signal foreshadowed the desolation that was coming upon them. (Josephus, War 6:293-96)

The Keys of the Kingdom - The Destruction of the Temple
...
“Our Rabbis have taught: When the First Temple was about to be destroyed bands upon bands of young priests with the keys of the Temple in their hands assembled and mounted the roof of the Temple and exclaimed, ‘Master of the Universe, as we did not have the merit to be faithful treasurers these keys are handed back into Thy keeping’. They then threw the keys up towards heaven. And there emerged the figure of a hand and received the keys from them. Whereupon they jumped and fell into the fire.” (Babylonian Talmud, Ta’anith 29a)
...
“What did [Jeconiah] do?―He collected all the keys of the Temple and ascended the roof [of the Temple], and said, “Lord of the Universe! Seeing that we have hitherto not proved worthy stewards, faithful custodians for Thee, from now and henceforth, behold Thy Keys are Thine.” Two Amoraim [differ as to what followed]. One said: A kind of fiery hand descended and took them from him; the other said: As he threw them upward they did not come down any more.” (Leviticus Rabbah 19.6)

 

The Priestly ‘Prime Minister’ in Jewish Tradition

...
➡️ The “Over the House” in the Bible (Isaiah 22)
 “Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the house (Hb al bayith), and say to him: ‘What have you to do here, that you have hewn here a tomb for yourself…? Behold, the LORD will hurl you away violently, O you strong man. He will seize firm hold on you, and whirl you round and round, and throw you like a ball into a wide land; there you shall die... I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station. In that day, I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your belt on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house. And they will hang on him the whole weight of his father’s house, the offspring of every issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons...” (Isaiah 22:15-24)

...
➡️ The Priestly Overseer in the Targum on Isaiah 22

Thus says the LORD God of hosts, “Come go to this guardian, to Shebna, who is appointed over the house, and you will say to him: What have you do to here and why do you act this way; that you have prepared a place for yourself here?” He has prepared his place on the height, sets his residence in the rock. “Behold, the LORD casts you out, a mighty man is cast out, and shame will cover you. He will take away from you the turban and encircle you with enemies as an encircling wall… there you shall die, and there shall your glorious chariots return in shame, because you did not guard the glory of your master’s house. And I will thrust you from your place and throw you down from your ministry. And it will come to pass in that time that I will exalt my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your cincture, and place your authority in his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place the key of the Sanctuary and the authority of the house of David in his hand; and he will open, and none shall shut; and he will shut, and none shall open. And I will appoint him a faithful officer ministering in an enduring place... And all the glorious ones of his father’s house will rely on him, the sons and the sons’s sons, from the princes to the juniors, from the priests wearing the ephod to the sons of the Levites holding the harps. (Targum on Isaiah 22:15-25)

 

🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦

 

ARGUMENT 2 - PETER FEEDS THE SHEEP

 

In John 10:11, Christ, the Good Shepherd, said that He would lay down His life for us, the sheep; in John 21:15-17, Jesus told Peter to feed His sheep. Peter teaches and leads us: we follow Peter, we are fed by Peter. We must submit to the Pope.

Since Peter feeds us, this implies and requires that we are One Flock, United (in the Catholic Church, the Body of Christ, submitting to this Hierarchy of Authority), being fed by (Peter; in other words:) the Pope (because it is a necessity by reason that the sheep must be fed not only in Peter's time, but beyond, otherwise we, the majority of the flock, would be left unfed; and the Bible teaches that there is succession [read ARGUMENT 4, 6, and 11]).

 

Furthermore, we must conjugate this with:

II Samuel 5:2 - The Lord said to thee (David): «Thou shalt feed my people Israel».
II Samuel 7:7 - «(...) any one of the tribes of Israel (...) whom I commanded to feed my people Israel (...)»

...

- Absalom [II Samuel 15], Sheba [II Samuel 20], and the men who followed them were against David's authority, they rejected to be fed by David, so they were transgressors;

-  Korah and the men who followed him rejected the authority of Moses and Aaron (Numbers 16:3), claiming that all of Israel was equal to them: «Let it be enough for you, that all the multitude consisteth of holy ones, and the Lord is among them. Why lift you up yourselves above the people of the Lord?»... Even though these men believed in the existence of and feared God, they rejected Moses, the authority God put in place to feed his people; and so these transgressors were punished (Numbers 16:31-35).

...

*Consequently, just as those who rejected to be fed by David or the authorities of Israel were transgressors, those who reject to be fed by Saint Peter and the Church's authorities are transgressors.

 

Part II - «I AM THE LEGENDARY SUPER SAIYAN!»

 

*Note: in the last chapters of the Gospel according to each Apostle, Christ commissions the Apostles. But in the Gospel according to Saint John, Christ institutes Peter as the Pope (Christ tells us to be fed by Peter).
...
When Saint John wrote this, it was in year 90+, and he wrote this firstly for the people in Asia Minor (Ephesus). These facts are important because: Saint Peter had died in year 67, around 20 years before; Saint John was the only Apostle alive.
...
In simple words: Saint Peter was not in Ephesus; Saint Peter had already been martyred in year 67. Saint John was in Ephesus, and told them around year 90+ that Peter (and his Successor, the Bishop of Rome) is the Universal Chief... We must be fed by Peter.
...
*Hypothetically, even if Peter were still alive, why would Saint John tell (the people of Ephesus or anyone anywhere) to follow Peter (that isn't even there in Ephesus, when Saint John is literally there), if Peter were not the Pope? So Peter must be the Pope! And when Jesus said it, He did not limit or specify the sheep, but instead spoke generally (also, the Gospel has a Universal and eternal mission); Peter feeds the sheep that Jesus died for - all of us, not merely a few in a specific location or time - we are the sheep, and Jesus said that Peter feeds us. Whichever the case, Peter's Papal Supremacy shines, and so we must submit to the Bishop of Rome (his Successor).
...
This alone further proves the Papacy; Saint John, after Peter had already been martyred, recognized and wrote for us to be fed by and submit to Peter/the Pope/Bishop of Rome/Successor of Peter.

 

Proofs for this information:

 

Irenaeus of Lyons in Against Heresies wrote:
III, I, II:
- «Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.»
III, III, IV:
- «Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan [year 97+] (...)»
...
Eusebius of Caesarea and Clement of Alexandria also agree with this; the Gospel according to Saint John was the last one written.

 

Part III - «ULTRA INSTINCT!»

 

- The Gospel according to Saint John was written after Peter's Martyrdom:

 

The passage in John 21:18-19 explicitly refers to Peter's martyrdom (Saint Peter was crucified upside-down, year 67) in a way that strongly suggests it had already occurred by the time the Gospel according to Saint John was written.

 

John 21:18-19 - «[18] Amen, amen I say to thee, when thou wast younger, thou didst gird thyself, and didst walk where thou wouldst. But when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and lead thee whither thou wouldst not. [19] And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had said this, he saith to him: Follow me.»

 

- The author of the Gospel put his own comment on the Scripture: «And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God.»... This is a comment by John, indicating that the event of Peter’s martyrdom was known and fulfilled by the time of writing. Saint John wrote this with the knowledge of Peter's martyrdom.
...
The Gospel of John often reflects on the meaning of Jesus’s words in a way that suggests a deeper understanding has been achieved over time. This is evident in several places throughout the Gospel where the author revisits Jesus’s words with the benefit of hindsight (examples: John 2:22, 12:16, 12:33, 13:7... These verses show that the disciples commonly initially did not understand Jesus’s actions and prophecies, but only later realized it when it was fulfilled).
...
Similarly, the mention of Peter’s martyrdom in John 21:18-19 is not only a prophecy, but also a reflection on the event that had already transpired by the time the Gospel was written; Saint John did not merely record this prophecy, but interpreted it in light of its fulfillment; so Saint John wrote his Gospel after Peter’s martyrdom.

 

*Remember: in whatever case, Jesus declared that we the sheep are to be fed by Peter, which necessarily includes Peter's Successors (because it is the natural way for us to be fed by Peter after his death); Peter speaks and acts through his Successor.

 

🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦

 

ARGUMENT 3 - THE CHURCH MUST BE UNITED; PETER (THE POPE) KEEPS THE CHURCH UNITED; HE IS THE POINT OF UNITY; THE POPE IS INFALLIBLE

 

Luke 22:31-32 - «And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you [plural: all of the Apostles], that he may sift you [plural: all of the Apostles] as wheat: But I have prayed for thee [singular: only Peter], that thy [singular: only Peter] faith fail not: and thou [singular: only Peter], being once converted, confirm thy brethren.»
...
In Luke 22:31-32, Jesus made Peter the point of Unity and correctness, and Jesus protects only Peter from error; this means infallibility. Whoever is not in communion with the Pope, is outside of the Unity of the Flock, outside of the Church.

 

The Bible insists that we must be One Flock; the Church must have no divisions (John 17:20-23, 1 Corinthians 1:10-13, Phillipians 2:2, Romans 15:5-6, Romans 16:17-20, 2 Thessalonians 2:13-15, +++).

Saint Paul rejects divisions such as “I follow Christ (exclusively/alone)” (1 Corinthians 1:10-13), emphasizing Unity and Church leadership.
1 Corinthians 1:10-13 - «I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.”... Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?»
...
At the Church of Corinth, there were 4 divisions that Paul lists:
1 - Broke the Unity to exclusively follow Paul;
2 - Broke the Unity to exclusively follow Apollos;
3 - Broke the Unity to exclusively follow Cephas;
4 - Broke the Unity to exclusively follow Christ.
...
Paul reprehends all four divisions, including the fourth division [“I follow (exclusively) Christ”], demanding that they all unite, and they obeyed and resolved their divisions. This shows that Saint Paul has authority over them... So the Church of Corinth, obeying Saint Paul's authority and commands, further proves that the fourth division [“I follow (exclusively) Christ”] is refuted, along with the rest of the divisions. Saint Paul, exercising his authority over them, shows that within the Body of Christ, there is an ecclesiastical pyramid of authority (in other words: we must follow Paul and Christ (we must follow the entire Body and Hierarchy of Authority); we must not “exclusively” follow one; we must not reject the others).
...
It is an impossibility to follow “ONLY” Christ while rejecting the authorities within the Body of Christ, such as Saint Paul, and the other Apostolic Successors.
...
Ofcourse, the Church of Corinth submitted to the Pope; they followed Pope Clement's commands in his Letter to the Corinthian Church (year 90).
...
NOTE: protestants believe in an absolute “I only follow Christ” (in which a person can just “believe” in Christ and do NOTHING ELSE - which is embarrassingly contradictory)! - The “I follow (exclusively) Christ” in the fourth faction/division is much less heretical, because bishops were apart of the factions, and these bishops still had and exercised authority, were (TEMPORARILY divided and bad) Catholics, and they merely made up their ecclesiastical doctrines claiming that they learn from “exclusively Christ”, rejecting other opinions - in other words, they still practiced the Sacraments and saw it as essential, and believed in the fundamental pillars of Catholic doctrine... They were not rejecting the Church's general structure but were improperly emphasizing their own interpretation of following Christ.
...
So, if Saint Paul rejected this light “I exclusively follow Jesus, but still believe in the Authority and general structure of the Church, Sacraments, and bishops”, then the absolute “I only follow Jesus, and reject everything else such as the Sacraments, the bishops, Tradition...+++” is much worse.

The Catholic Church is the Church of Christ that He founded upon Peter, so the Holy Spirit guides this Church; whoever causes division or contradiction against this Unity is a heretic. So since the Church of Christ teaches Extra Ecclesiam, Nulla Salus... All must submit.

The necessity of a Chief is that only he can unite us. That is why protestantism has one trillion+++ divisions, and the "orthodox" are not united, as they have 17 autocephalous churches of equal authority (so they can freely contradict eachother).
...
The Pope is the Steward of the Kingdom and Church; someone who does not submit to him is outside.
Only Catholics are United and in the Church, since all Catholics submit to the Pope's authority.
Conjugating with Peter feeding us all, this is perfectly synchronized.

 

EXTRA: In John 11, we see that the High Priest is infallible. The Pope is, ofcourse, also infallible.

 

😌🇻🇦

 

ARGUMENT 3.1 - THE CHURCH IS AN INSTITUTION

 

Since there is a group of men with authority united, it is synonymous of saying that this One Group of Authority is the Institution (THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH)!

Ephesians 4+1 Corinthians 12 also state that there are offices and members with different roles in the Church/Body of Christ. So if there are offices and members, and they are united all in one Body, this consequently means that it is an institution, since it is being led by the ones in the offices.

 

EXTRA: Going to Church/mass is necessary:
Hebrews 10:25 - «Not forsaking our assembly, as some are accustomed; but comforting one another, and so much the more as you see the day approaching.»

 

🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦

 

ARGUMENT 4 - THE BIBLE IS NOT THE ONLY AUTHORITY; THE BIBLE AFFIRMS THE AUTHORITY OF THE APOSTLES (+THEIR SUCCESSORS) AND ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

 

As already seen, the Bible affirms that the Pope has Universal Authority, he is the Steward, he is the Second-In-Command.
The Bible also gives authority to: 1. bishops which The Holy Spirit puts in place (Acts 20:28); 2. Tradition passed through the Apostolic Successors (this implies that the Apostolic Successors carry and teach the TRADITION, the WRITTEN and SPOKEN WORD [2 Thessalonians 2:13-15]), so we must learn from them; 3. Ecumenical Councils (Matthew 18:15-18, Acts, +++).

Matthew 18:17 - If he [heretic] refuses to listen to them [correct Catholic men], tell it to the [Catholic] Church. And if he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

...

*What is written between straight brackets («[...]») has already been proven in this document to be the correct interpretation of this verse; because the Church mentioned in the Bible is indeed the Catholic Church; but this is not even the argument that I'm aiming for here. With or without this correct interpretation, my following argument is true:
...
This verse shows that the Church mentioned in the Bible has a physical, visible, authority; there are members of the Church that exercise this authority (the bishops, and such). Also, we can look at the book of Acts, in which the Church has a Council.
...
“Non-denominational” protestants claim that the Church is completely "invisible" and not physical; clearly, a silly impossibility.

...

Hebrews 13:17 - «Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.»

...

St. Paul tells us the Church is “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15) and it was built on “the foundation of the apostles” (Eph. 2:20) and that we are to respect and obey this authority (1 Thess. 5:12, Hebrews 13:17). When a decision is made by the Church regarding the faith and practice of it’s members, this decision is binding on all Christians, as Christ Himself said:“If he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile or a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” - Matt. 18:17-18

 

It was only by the authority given by Christ that the Church could even author Scripture in the first place, so naturally it would also be by this authority that the Church could later determine which books belonged in the Bible. This is why the Bible could be infallibly written by the Church and the Church could infallibly determine which books belong in the Bible.  In other words, by accepting the current Biblical canon, one necessarily must accept the teaching authority of the Church.

...

So, the Bible redirects towards the Church. The Church has authority, and the Pope is the Big Boss (Metal Gear reference). Also, it is a necessity for the Church to have visible authority; because Jesus gave Sacraments for us to participate in; these alone require the bishops and authority of the Catholic Church, the way it is.

Protestants accept the first Church Council (of Jerusalem) merely because it is mentioned in the Bible, but reject the other Councils merely because they are not mentioned in the Bible.
Church Councils, like the first Council of Jerusalem, were guided by the Holy Spirit to resolve doctrinal disputes and maintain unity in the early Church. Just as we trust in the authority of the first Council (Acts 15), we recognize the authority of subsequent Councils; because Christ promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church (John 16:13), not just for a single moment in time, but always. The same Spirit that guided the Apostles in Acts 15 continues to guide the Church in subsequent centuries, including the convening of later Councils. To dismiss their authority is to reject the continuous presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church and Her decision-making processes.

Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would be with His disciples and Apostles to guide them and to make them have the truth (John 14:16-20, 14:26, and 16:13). So when the Church has a Council, we have to obey.

 

Matthew 28:19-20: «Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.»
...
With this phrase alone, Jesus said that He shall be with the Apostolic Church founded upon Peter till the end, and that the Church has the authority to teach to observe whatever Jesus commands to teach.

John 14:26 - «But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.»
...
Jesus says that the Church shall be divinely guided, not only to remind of what He taught but also to teach all things.

 

BONUS - IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO FOLLOW JESUS “ALONE”. JESUS TOLD US TO FOLLOW THE APOSTLES. To add to the verses already shown:

 

Matthew 10:40: "He that receiveth you, receiveth Me: and he that receiveth Me, receiveth him that sent me."
- Christ directly ties accepting Him to accepting His Apostles. To follow Jesus, we must also accept those He sent.

 

Luke 10:16: "He that heareth you, heareth Me: and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me."
- Rejecting the Apostles is equivalent to rejecting Christ Himself. Therefore, it is impossible to claim to follow Jesus while ignoring those He appointed to lead.

 

John 13:20: "Amen, amen I say to you, he that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me; and he that receiveth Me, receiveth him that sent Me."

 

😌🇻🇦

 

ARGUMENT 4.1 - SUCCESSION

 

The Bible affirms that there is succession of the Apostolic Positions/Authority:

Acts 1:20-26 - The selection of Matthias to replace Judas Iscariot among the Twelve Apostles after Judas's betrayal and death.

1 Timothy 4:14 - Paul instructs Timothy not to neglect the gift he has received through the laying on of hands by Paul and the elders.

Titus 1:5 - Paul instructs Titus to appoint elders in every town, implying a succession of leadership.

 

Paul tells Timothy to transmit the teaching he has given to him to future generations, but to be sure it is committed to faithful men:
2 Timothy 2:2 - Paul instructs Timothy to entrust what he has learned to faithful people who will be able to teach others also.

Timothy is given the authoritative task to “command and teach” (1 Tim. 4:11), along with rebuking those who come along and teach things contrary to sound teaching (2 Tim. 4:1-5). Paul makes it clear how Christians should receive this teaching and that they should consider “elders” as “worthy of double honor” (1 Tim. 5:17). Timothy and Titus were also given the authority to ordain other men as presbyters (priests) and bishops (Titus 1:5). Timothy is told to discern which men are worthy to be “bishops” (1 Tim. 3:1-7) and “deacons” (1 Tim. 8-13) and he should not be too hasty in handing this authority on to others (1 Tim 5:22).

...
So this means that we must follow the Apostolic Successors.

Ofcourse, this includes Peter's Papal Position; Peter is the Chief, so Peter's special authority is carried through his successors; to add to this argument, the Position of Steward that Jesus mirrored had succession, so when Jesus mirrored it to Peter, it naturally includes the succession; because succession is an inherent characteristic of the Position of Steward; it is a necessity for there to always be a steward, otherwise the kingdom shall have no caretaker, and shall inevitably collapse. Succession is inherent to this authority, and is fundamental for the continuous existence of the Carrier of the Keys, and the Steward of the Kingdom.

 

Also, Peter himself chose successors. Peter himself verified that there should be succession for his Papal Position; Peter himself chose his student Clement to succeed him. Pope Francis is the current Pope, the Successor of Saint Peter.

 

1️⃣ TERTULLIAN OF CARTHAGE (155-240)
Document: The Prescription Against Heretics
Chapter XXII:
➡️ "Peter, who is called 'the rock on which the Church is to be built'."
Chapter XXXII:
➡️ "Like the Church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; likewise the Church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in the same way by Peter."

 

2️⃣ IRENAEUS OF LION (successor of St. John)
Document: Against Heresies (year 160)
Book III, chapter I, verse I:
➡️ "Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundations of the Church."
Book III, chapter III, verse II:
➡️ "The very great, very ancient and universally known Church, founded and organized in Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul. It is a matter of necessity that all churches should agree with this Church, because of its pre-eminent authority."
Book III, chapter III, verse III:
➡️ "The blessed Apostles, having founded and built up the Church, entrusted the episcopate to the hands of Linus.... And then Anacletus, and then Clement, were entrusted with the bishopric."

 

To further solidify this argument:
Ignatius of Antioch (disciple of Apostle John) wrote to the Smyrnaeans [8:2] - “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”; Ignatius also wrote to the Roman Church [4:3]: “I do not give you orders like Peter and Paul gave you orders.” (this shows that Peter founded the Roman Catholic Church).

 

EXTRA: THE COMPLETE LIST OF ALL OF PETER'S PAPAL SUCCESSORS: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/papalist.htm

 

😌🇻🇦

 

ARGUMENT 4.2 - LIVING AUTHORITY; SOURCES OF AUTHORITY, NOT LIMITED BY THE SCRIPTURES

 

There are three authorities of equal value, that perfectly synchronize with eachother: the Magisterium, the Tradition, and the Scriptures.

Some may claim that the extra-biblical authorities cannot go beyond or add to what is written.

...

First of all, the New Testament Scriptures appeared many years AFTER the Magisterium and the Tradition. The New Testament Scriptures are fruits of the Catholic Church's MAGISTERIUM and TRADITION - they wrote and canonized the New Testament Scriptures.

Also, the Scriptures does not limit these other authorities, but even follows them, and points towards them for a further and deeper living guidance.

- Peter, having the Keys, is the Steward, that makes living authoritative decisions (Matthew 16:18-19).
- Peter has the authority to bind and loose; his decisions are living and authoritative (Matthew 16:18-19); Jesus said that heaven agrees with Peter's decisions.
- Peter feeds us (John 21:15-17).
...
- Throughout the Gospels and Acts, Peter is shown exercising leadership among the apostles and in the early Church, including presiding over the selection of Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:15-26).

...

The New Testament Scriptures were not even written at the time; Peter made authoritative decisions, and only later was it written (Peter made authoritative decisions that were later documented in Scripture). Peter is not bound and limited by Scriptures; it is the opposite: the Scriptures follow and accepted Peter's decisions.
...
In other words, this means that Peter's authority is independent of the Scriptures, and the Scriptures subsequently followed and accepted his decisions (just as Jesus said! Whatever Peter binds/looses on earth, shall be bound/loosed in heaven)! Thus, Peter's leadership is not bound or limited by the Scriptures; rather, the Scriptures affirm the authority he exercised from the outset.

...

Given this, Peter's authority is a living authority, one that was acknowledged and recorded in the Scriptures but not derived from them. This living authority implies that the principle of Sola Scriptura, which asserts that Scripture alone is the ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice, is fundamentally flawed and false.

 

If Peter’s authority was valid and recognized before the New Testament existed, then there are indeed extrabiblical authorities, and we should follow Peter and his successors. This directly refutes the heresy of Sola Scriptura, and it shows that Peter (and the other apostles) is an independent authority that synchronizes with the Scriptures.

 

🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦

 

ARGUMENT 4.3 - GOD GUIDES THE APOSTLES AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

 

John 21:25 - But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.
...
So, the Bible says that the Bible alone is insufficient to teach everything, and that there are more sources of the Gospel, and not just what was written, but also what was spoken and done. The Apostles founded the Catholic Church, taught and practiced the Sacraments, organized the Papacy, taught Catholicism, and such. Through all actions of the Apostles, we learn more of what was or was not written. Furthermore, Jesus directly declared that he hadn't taught them everything, and that with time more would be taught to the Apostles and to their successors:

John 14:16-19 - And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever. The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you orphans, I will come to you. Yet a little while: and the world seeth me no more. But you see me: because I live, and you shall live.
...
John 14:26 - But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.
...
John 16:12-13 - I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you.

In these verses, Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to the apostles and their successors, in order to teach them all truth, and to preserve them from error. All of the 12 and 70 Apostles and their successors were Catholic and founded Catholic churches; the Catholic Church was alone in the first century, and even in the entire first Millennium; thus, the Holy Spirit guided Catholicism and the Papacy - it is the truth that Christ promised to guide.
...
In simple words: Saint Peter and Saint Paul founded the Roman Catholic Church, therefore God promised to guide this Church. Heresies such as protestantism appeared only after year 1500+ (so it is not apostolic), therefore instantly means that it contradicts what God guides.
...
Shields: if a protestant claims that Christ promised to guide everyone:
1. False, because Christ specifically said that the world cannot and does not hear nor receive him, but only the Apostles shall know Him; and that there was more that He hadn't said to them (the Apostles).
2. Even if hypothetically all were included, it would be inconsistent and contradictory, thus an impossibility; because each person claims that the Holy Spirit guides them, even though they contradict; therefore, the Holy Spirit does not guide such people, because the truth is one and does not contradict. In simple words: the original Apostles and the earliest successors were all Catholic (these were definitely guided by the Holy Spirit), therefore, Catholicism is what the Holy Spirit guides. Something that appears after this, contradicting it, contradicts the guidance of God.
...
Example: Martin Luther (spit on him) in year 1500+ invented the first protestant doctrine and church; in other words, protestantism never existed before. So, it contradicts what the Holy Spirit guides (Catholicism).

 

We must conjugate with:

Luke 10:16: «He that heareth you, heareth Me: and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me.»
- Rejecting the Apostles is equivalent to rejecting Christ Himself. Contradicting the Apostles (and thus Catholicism) is rejecting Christ.

 

🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦

 

ARGUMENT 4.4 - BINDING AND LOOSENING

 

In Matthew 16:18-19 and 18:17-18, the greek word used is “deō” (δέω), which means bind/tie/forbid/make unlawful; the greek word “lyō” (λύω) means loosen/untie/permit/make lawful.

 

The hebrew word “asar” literally means “bind”; the hebrew word “hittir” literally means “loosen”.
- Bind/tie/forbid/make unlawful (“asar” - אָסַר)
- Loosen/untie/permit/make lawful (“hittir” - הִתִּיר).

 

The phrase “binding and loosening” was a legal term referring to the Sanhedrin’s capacity to establish halakah (rules of conduct) for the Hebrew people (Sifra, Emor, 9; Talmud: Makkot 23b). Christ acknowledged this authority as long as the Pharisees sat on the “Chair of Moses” (Matt. 23:1-4). However, Christ uses this formula of binding and loosening to show that this authority to teach, govern, and discipline has been transferred over to the Chair of St. Peter and the apostles (Matt. 16:19; 18:19; Luke 22:29-32).

 

CCC 553 - «The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church.»

 

Now let's check jewish books:

 

Talmud, Mas. Chagigah 3b - «“The masters of assemblies”: these are the disciples of the wise, who sit in manifold assemblies and occupy themselves with the Torah, some pronouncing unclean and others pronouncing clean, some prohibiting and others permiting, some disqualifying and others declaring fit.»

 

Flavius Josephus (jewish historian, born on year 37 after Christ) - THE WARS OF THE JEWS OR HISTORY OF THE
DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM
...
BOOK I: CONTAINING THE INTERVAL OF ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY-SEVEN YEARS FROM THE TAKING OF JERUSALEM BY ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES, TO THE DEATH OF HEROD THE GREAT
...
CHAPTER 5. Alexandra Reigns Nine Years, During Which Time
The Pharisees Were The Real Rulers Of The Nation.
...
1. Now Alexander left the kingdom to Alexandra his wife, and depended upon it that the Jews would now very readily submit to her, because she had been very averse to such cruelty as he had treated them with, and had opposed his violation of their laws, and had thereby got the good-will of the people. Nor was he mistaken as to his expectations; for this woman kept the dominion, by the opinion that the people had of her piety; for she chiefly studied the ancient customs of her country, and cast those men out of the government that offended against their holy laws. And as she had two sons by Alexander, she made Hyrcanus the elder high priest, on account of his age, as also, besides that, on account of his inactive temper, no way disposing him to disturb the public. But she retained the younger, Aristobulus, with her as a private person, by reason of the warmth of his temper.
...
2. And now the Pharisees joined themselves to her, to assist her in the government. These are a certain sect of the Jews that appear more religious than others, and seem to interpret the laws more accurately. low Alexandra hearkened to them to an extraordinary degree, as being herself a woman of great piety towards God. But these Pharisees artfully insinuated themselves into her favor by little and little, and became themselves the real administrators of the public affairs: they banished and reduced whom they pleased; they bound and loosed at their pleasure; and, to say all at once, they had the enjoyment of the royal authority, whilst the expenses and the difficulties of it belonged to Alexandra. She was a sagacious woman in the management of great affairs, and intent always upon gathering soldiers together; so that she increased the army the one half, and procured a great body of foreign troops, till her own nation became not only very powerful at home, but terrible also to foreign potentates, while she governed other people, and the Pharisees
governed her.»

 

🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦

 

ARGUMENT 5 - CHURCH FATHERS AND ECUMENICAL COUNCILS - THE ENTIRE CHURCH FOLLOWED THE POPE IN THE FIRST MILLENNIUM

 

So, the Bible tells us to follow the Pope, Church, bishops, and Councils.

The power to bind and loose was given to all of the Apostles but only Peter is the Rock and was given the Keys; so only Peter is the Universal Steward - Peter is over them. So the others must be in communion with Peter to make use of the power to bind/loose.
...
Also, even if someone says that the Apostles have ""equal"" authority, then you would still have to be Catholic, because they were all apart of the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church! And you would still have to submit to the Pope, because they (in the entire first Millennium) disagreed with you, because at the Councils (and also outside of the Councils) all agreed that the Pope and the Roman Church is above and over them in authority.

 

All Successors of the Apostles were Catholic (all obeyed the Pope). Let's see what they taught:

 

POPE CLEMENT I (DISCIPLE AND SUCCESSOR OF SAINT PETER)
Document: Letter to the Corinthians (year 80-90)
42:4–5; 44:1–3
“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry”

 

Saint Cyprian of Carthage (year 251 - The Unity of the Catholic Church, 4): «If someone deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?»

 

Saint Jerome (year 376 - Letter 15 to Pope Damasus): «As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the Chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!»

 

Saint Augustine (year 397-426):
- Letter 54 (to Januarius), chapter 1: «As to those other things which we hold on the authority, not of Scripture, but of tradition, and which are observed throughout the whole world, it may be understood that they are held as approved and instituted either by the apostles themselves, or by plenary Councils, whose authority in the Church is most useful, e.g. the annual commemoration, by special solemnities, of the Lord's passion, resurrection, and ascension, and of the descent of the Holy Spirit from heaven, and whatever else is in like manner observed by the whole Church wherever it has been established.»
...
- On Christian Doctrine (De Doctrina Christiana): «Let the reader consult the rule of faith, which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and from the soundness of reason.»
- Augustine advises readers to use the "rule of faith" derived from Scripture, Church authority, and reason to interpret Christian doctrine.
*He was the bishop of the Catholic Church of Hippo, submitting to the Pope.

 

Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II:
- Letter to Patriarch Tarasios of Constantinople (GREEK ACTS) (180): «“You are Peter, and on this rock I shall build my church...”... His see shines forth as primatial throughout the world and is the head of all the churches of God... Therefore the same blessed Peter the Apostle, shepherding the church at the command of the Lord, has left nothing to neglect, but upholds, and has always upheld, her authority... Our Apostolic See is the head of all the churches of God... Every place must observe the tradition of this our sacred and most holy Roman church, and abominating and expelling the error of the wicked heretics.»

...

The Legates of the Pope stated:
«Let Tarasios the most holy patriarch of the imperial city say if he agrees with the letters of the most holy Pope of Elder Rome or not.»

Tarasios Approving Hadrian's Letters:
«Hadrian who presides in Elder Rome and shares in what has been testified has written with clarity and truth to our pious emperors and to our humility, claiming well and rightly to hold on to the ancient tradition of the Catholic Church. And we ourselves, having carried out a scriptural, a searching, and a logical and probative investigation, and instructed by the teaching of the fathers, have professed and profess accordingly, and approve, maintain, and confirm the content of the letters that have been read out.»

The Legates said:
«Let the holy council tell us if it accepts the letters of the most holy pope of Elder Rome or not.»
The Council responded:
«We follow, accept and approve them.»
...
Nicaea II: (Patriarch of Constantinople's Letter to the Pope) Terasios Second Letter to Pope Hadrian:
«Your fraternal high-priestly holiness, presiding lawfully and by God's will over the holy hierarchs, enjoys universal repute.»

...

Nicaea II, Session 6 - «And how can a council be great and ecumenical when it received neither recognition nor assent from the primates of the other churches, but they consigned it to anathema? It did not enjoy the cooperation of the then Pope of Rome or his priests, neither by means of his representatives or an encyclical letter, AS IS THE RULE FOR COUNCILS.

 

Council of Ephesus (Acts, session 2): «Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed Pope had been read to you... You joined yourselves to the Holy Head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the Head of the whole faith, the Head of the Apostles, is blessed Peter the Apostle.»

 

Council of Ephesus (Acts, session 3): «There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, Prince and Head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the Keys of the Kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors.»

 

Synod of Chalcedon, session III [2:70] (greek version): «Therefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of Great and Senior Rome, through us and the present most holy council, together with the thrice-blessed and wholly renowned Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and stay of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties.»

...

Latin text: «Therefore the holy and most blessed pope, the head of the universal church, through us his representatives and with the assent of the holy council, endowed as he is with the dignity of Peter the Apostle, who is called the foundation of the church, the rock of faith, and the doorkeeper of the heavenly kingdom [...]»

 

Chalcedon, session I [1:90] (documents 7 and 8):

Pope Leo's representative Lucentius condemned Dioscorus's holding of Ephesus II without papal permission, even though Theodosius II had called the Council: «He presumed to hold a council without the leave of the Apostolic See, a thing which has never been done and may not be done.»

 

Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (451), session II [2:21-23]:
«The most glorious officials and the exalted senate said: “Let the letter of the most religious Leo, archbishop of the imperial and senior Rome, be read.” [Letter:] «Leo bishop of Rome to his beloved brother Flavian [...]» [...] After the reading of the aforesaid letter the most devout bishops exclaimed: “This is the faith of the fathers. This is the faith of the apostles. We all believe accordingly. We orthodox believe accordingly! Peter has uttered this through Leo. The apostles taught accordingly. Leo taught piously and truly.”»

...

Council of Chalcedon (451):
The patriarchs of the East made the proposal in canon 28 to give Constantinople the same privileges as Rome.
...
Pope Leo I rejected canon 28 as it violated the primacy of the Church of Rome.
The patriarchs obeyed and removed canon 28, obeying the Pope.
Pure proof of Supreme Papal and Roman Church Authority.
...
Pope Leo I was concerned not only with the immediate implications of granting Constantinople a position of authority, but also with the potential long-term consequences. By opposing Constantinople's aspirations for greater authority, Leo sought to prevent any usurpation of the primacy of the Roman See and to safeguard the unity and stability of the Church.
...
Pope Leo I understood that allowing Constantinople to gain more influence could lead to future challenges to Rome's authority. He therefore took a firm stance to maintain the traditional hierarchy and to ensure that Rome's pre-eminence in the Church remained unchallenged. This approach aimed to preserve the integrity of the Church and avoid any potential conflicts or divisions over ecclesiastical authority.

 

Council of Nicaea, canon 6: «Let the ancient custom which is followed in Egypt and Libya and the Pentapolis remain in force, by which the Bishop of Alexandria has the supervision of all those places, since this is also the custom of the Bishop of Rome.»
...
This merely gave Alexandria regional patriarchal jurisdiction; while Rome has two exclusive jurisdictions: in the West and Universal Jurisdiction.
...
The Alexandrian church gained this faculty merely because Rome had this faculty in the West; this proves that Rome is the primary model and basis for the determination of the other churches. This actually shows that Rome is superior.

Arabic canon 39 attributed to the Council of Nicaea, that decrees: «He who occupies the chair of Rome is the Head and Prince of all patriarchs; since he is the first, as was Peter, to whom power is given over all Christian princes, and over all their peoples and over the whole Christian Church, and whosoever shall gainsay this is excommunicated by the Synod.»

 

The Eastern fathers at the 6th ecumenical council believed Pope St. Agatho taught papal infallibility. They acknowledged that Agatho's letter was divinely written and St. Peter spoke through him:

"For the ancient city of Rome handed thee a ▶️**CONFESSION OF DIVINE CHARACTER,**◀️ and a chart from the sunsetting raised up the day of dogmas, and made the darkness manifest, and ▶️**PETER SPOKE THROUGH AGATHO**◀️ Peter spoke through Agatho, and thou, O autocratic King, according to the divine decree, with the Omnipotent Sharer of thy throne, didst judge." (The Third Council of Constantinople: The Prosphoneticus to the Emperor, 348)

“..and we acknowledge that this letter was ▶️**DIVINELY WRITTEN AS BY THE CHIEF OF THE APOSTLES**◀️, and through it we have cast out the heretical sect of many clement scepter.” (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 14,)

 

Also: the Synod of Antioch (year 269), mentioned below: “Notes - red herrings refuted“; and: the Council of Florence (year 1439), mentioned below: “More arguments” (5.).

 

The proof is so much that I won't list them all here 🗣‼️🇻🇦 The entire Apostolic Church (so every Apostolic Successor) agreed: the Successor of Peter, (the Bishop of Rome) carries Peter's full authority, he is the Universal Steward, with Supreme Authority, over all.

 

🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦

 

ARGUMENT 6 - THE CANONIZATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

 

The canonization of the NT is a product of Catholic Authority; the logical consistency of Sola Scriptura is null. The Bible does not authenticate itself - Sola Scriptura is absolutely paradoxical.
The Bible relies on an external authority for validation, because it does not validate itself - the Bible does not give the list of documents that are Sacred, and it does not authenticate the complete contents of the texts. This alone refutes Sola Scriptura.

The Catholic Church appeared first (year 33), and was alone for the entire first Millennium; all Apostles were Catholic; the Sacred Texts were written by the Catholic Church between year 50-90.
...
So, the external authority is the Catholic Church and the Pope, because (the Sacred Texts were firstly written, then protected and shared by the Catholic Church/Apostolic Fathers, and then) the New Testament was canonized at the Council of Rome (year 382), by the Catholic Church, led by Pope Damasus I.

The Catholic Church, led by Pope Damasus I, at the Council of Rome (382), infallibly chose the correct and perfect list (and it's contents) of infallible documents to make the New Testament; so this requires that the Catholic Church has authority, is guided by the Holy Spirit, and also has capacity to be infallible.

Ultimately, if the New Testament that we have is an infallible authoritative list (+contents) of documents inspired by God, you are forced to agree that the canonization at the Ecumenical Council of Rome (382) was authoritative and guided by God. Thus, you must aswell agree that Ecumenical Councils are authoritative and guided by God. Thus, once more, you must agree that the entity that leads and manages the Ecumenical Councils is authoritative and guided by God. Thus, finally, you are forced to submit to the authority of the man at the top of the ecclesiastical pyramid of authority (the Pope), and to the other successors aswell, because they have authority and are guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

If we look at the Apostolic Canon 85 we shall see the Epistles and Constitutions of Pope Clement there; many early Catholic churches considered Pope Clement's Letter to the Corinthian Church as apart of Sacred Scripture (because it was written by the Successor of Peter, the Pope). In Pope Clement's Letter to the Corinthian Church (year 90), he gives commands to the Corinthian Church... He exercises Supreme Authority, showing that he has Universal Jurisdiction (because Jesus made Peter the Universal Steward, the Chief of the Church).
Pope Clement wrote (chapters 59 and 60): «God speaks through us (Pope+Roman Church), so obey what we say or else be in transgression»
...
Note: when Pope Clement wrote this, Saint John was still alive; instead of Saint John enforcing his authority towards Corinth, the Pope did. This shows that the Pope is supreme in authority. Saint John did not go against this.
...
The Church of Corinth received the Letter, obeyed, considered it as SACRED SCRIPTURE, and put it in the New Testament (proof: Codex Alexandrinus has this Letter). Dionysius of Corinth wrote (year 170) to Pope Soter showing that Clement's Letter was indeed authoritative and Sacred Scripture.

Ofcourse, even though this Letter is genuine and recommended for reading by the Catholic Church, it was not canonized in 382 by the Catholic Church. This actually helps to show that protestants obey the Catholic Church's canonization as divinely guided and infallible (since protestants follow the EXACT thing that the canonization affirmed, and not Clement's Letters), thus needing that the Church has authority, infallibility, and divine guidance; because it is the only way to validade the New Testament.
So it is an impossibility to consider the New Testament as valid and authoritative without considering the Catholic Church as valid and authoritative.

 

🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦

 

ARGUMENT 6.1 - THE OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS AND THE SEPTUAGINT. THE APOSTLES USED (AND SO VALIDATED) THE SEPTUAGINT

 

Intro note: I have already defended the New Testament Gospel accounts+books and contents; now time to defend the Old Testament books and contents. Protestants reject the Septuagint version (+deuterocanonical books) not because they have a logical reason to, but merely because these books further prove Catholic doctrine, and further refute protestantism. And remember: Jesus told us to follow the Catholic Church founded upon Peter and the Pope; so this is merely a cute and fun bonus argument! Gotta get that 1000x hit combo and overkill! Time to further wreck protestantism 😹‼️🗣📣💥🔊

 

Context and objective: the Septuagint is the greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, written around year 250 before Christ.
The differences between the Septuagint and the masoretic texts: the Septuagint has 7 books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees) that are not in the masoretic; also, all over the entire Old Testament, there are significant variations of phrases.
...
A protestant may claim “the Septuagint came from the hebrew text, so the hebrew text itself is more trustworthy” - but I am going to refute this (spoiler: the current masoretic hebrew text is corrupted. Ultimatum/proof: Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint).
...
The New Testament has many references that align beautifully with the Septuagint, while rejecting the masoretic. The Apostles directly cite and enjoy the Septuagint; a few examples:

 

Matthew 1:23 - Isaiah 7:14
- New Testament: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel.”
- Septuagint: “Behold, the virgin (Greek: parthenos) shall conceive and bear a son.”
- Masoretic Text (Hebrew): “Behold, the young woman shall conceive...”
*The word used in the Septuagint is parthenos (virgin), but the Hebrew Masoretic Text says almah (young woman). The Apostles, following the Septuagint, were pointing directly to the virgin birth of Christ.

 

Hebrews 10:5 - Psalm 40:6
- New Testament: “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body you have prepared for me.”
- Septuagint: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you have prepared for me.”
- Masoretic Text: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have opened.”
*In the Septuagint, it's clear this is a prophecy about the Incarnation - God preparing a body for the Messiah. The Hebrew text only talks about "opening ears," which is far less clear and lacks the Christological focus - the Apostles directly cite and enjoy the Septuagint, clearly rejecting the masoretic.

 

Luke 4:18-19 – Isaiah 61:1-2
- New Testament: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me... to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.” (Luke 4:18-19)”
- Septuagint: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me... to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind.”
- Masoretic Text: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me... to bind up the brokenhearted.”
*The Septuagint that Jesus reads in the synagogue includes “recovery of sight to the blind,” a phrase missing from the Masoretic Text but central to Jesus' healing ministry. He chose this version to reveal His mission.

 

1 Peter 4:18 - Proverbs 11:31
- New Testament: “If the righteous is scarcely saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?”
- Septuagint: “If the righteous is scarcely saved, where will the ungodly and the sinner appear?”
- Masoretic Text: “Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed on earth; much more the wicked and the sinner.”
*Peter's quote clearly respects the Septuagint.

 

Matthew 21:16 - Psalm 8:2
- New Testament: “Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies, you have prepared praise.”
- Septuagint: “Out of the mouths of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise.”
- Masoretic Text: “Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have established strength.”
*Matthew's account of the Gospel follows the Septuagint's phrasing, “prepared praise”. Do I even have to give commentary? This is all incredibly direct and obvious.

 

Acts 7:14 - Genesis 46:27
- New Testament: “Joseph sent and summoned Jacob his father and all his kindred, seventy-five persons in all.”
- Septuagint: “...all the souls of the house of Jacob that went into Egypt, seventy-five.”
- Masoretic Text: “All the persons of the house of Jacob who came into Egypt were seventy.”
*The Septuagint mentions 75 persons while the Hebrew text says 70. Stephen, in his speech in Acts, clearly quotes from the Septuagint, showing that the Apostles were comfortable with using this version even when the numbers differed.

 

Romans 15:12 - Isaiah 11:10
- New Testament: “The root of Jesse will come, even he who arises to rule the Gentiles; in him will the Gentiles hope.”
- Septuagint: “There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles, in him shall the Gentiles hope.”
- Masoretic Text: “In that day the root of Jesse, who shall stand as a signal for the peoples - of him shall the nations inquire.”
*Paul directly follows the Septuagint, which emphasizes the hope of the Gentiles in Christ, rather than the more vague wording of "inquire" found in the Hebrew.

 

Hebrews 1:6 - Deuteronomy 32:43
- New Testament: “Let all God's angels worship him.”
- Septuagint: “Rejoice, O heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him.”
- Masoretic Text: (This verse is missing in the Masoretic Text.)
*The command for the angels to worship Christ is found only in the Septuagint version of Deuteronomy 32:43. This is a direct reference to Jesus’ divine nature, and the Hebrew version doesn’t even have this part of the verse.

 

James 4:6 - Proverbs 3:34
- New Testament: “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”
- Septuagint: “The Lord resists the proud; but he gives grace to the humble.”
- Masoretic Text: “He mocks proud mockers but shows favor to the humble and oppressed.”
*James clearly follows the Septuagint’s version of this proverb, while the Hebrew text changes the focus to "mocking".

 

So, Jesus and the Apostles (guided by the Holy Spirit, which Jesus promised,) used the Septuagint; consequently, it means that the Septuagint is valid and authoritative. Common Catholic victory; common protestant loss. Repent, and submit to the Only Catholic Church of Christ founded upon Saint Peter, led by the Pope.

*Deuterocanonical references in the New Testament: http://4marksofthechurch.com/biblical-canon-of-the-septuagint/

 

EXTRA: the Dead Sea Scrolls (written around year 200 before Christ) also respect the Septuagint, further proving the validity of it.

 

🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦 BONUS ROUND:

 

ARGUMENT 7 - FURTHER DESTRUCTION OF SOLA SCRIPTURA. JESUS AND THE APOSTLES ARE AGAINST SOLA SCRIPTURA. TRADITION IS AUTHORITATIVE.

 

Jesus and the Apostles followed the Seat of Moses, but the Seat of Moses is not explicitly seen being established in the Old Testament Scriptures. So the source authority of this other authority is Tradition.

Some may claim that the Seat of Moses is established in the Old Testament Scriptures:

Exodus 18:13 - «Moses sat, to judge the people...»

*The Old Testament alone does not explicitly state that the Seat of Moses was established, this verse merely states Moses's own actions and authority. The Seat is legitimately recognized through Tradition instead.
...
If you believe that this verse is sufficient to prove that the Seat of Moses was established, then you would also be forced to agree that the following verse is sufficient to prove that the Chair of Peter was established:

Acts 15:7 - «(At the Council,) Peter stood up (from his seat) and said to them...»

Now, if you change your position in order to avoid accepting this, that would mean that Jesus and the Apostles recognized the Seat of Moses (Matthew 23:2) through Tradition, extra-biblical source of authority, and thus proving furthermore that Sola Scriptura is false.

 

So, the same way that Tradition followed the Seat of Moses, Tradition follows the Chair of Peter (Irenaeus's Against Heretics, Book III, Chapter III) - all must become Catholic!

 

More: claiming that the Seat of Moses was established when Moses chose Joshua as his successor is not sufficient by itself, because from Scripture alone it could have been a one-time thing without a Seat; the Old Testament never shows Joshua choosing a successor or the institution of the Seat of Moses.
...
Tradition reveals that a consistent lineage (Seat) was instituted, which the Old Testament does not specify.
...
To mirror this, Jesus, the Shepherd, similarly made Peter His successor as the Shepherd to feed His sheep (us). And just as Tradition affirms the Seat of Moses, Tradition also proves that the Chair of Peter was instituted.

 

EXTRA: The decisions that the Church made at the Council of Jerusalem were not based on Scriptures, but on their own decisions.
For example the Council abolished circumcision; when they abolished it, the New Testament Scriptures were not written yet, and there were only the Old Testament Scriptures; the Old Testament Scriptures does not say anything about abolishing circumcision. So this means that the Council decided something with their own decisions, and it was authoritative. So Sola Scriptura is false. The Apostles and their Successors have living authority.

 

🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦 BONUS ROUND:

 

ARGUMENT 8 - THE WORD «CATHOLIC» IN THE BIBLE. EKKLESIA KATH HOLĒS

 

Acts 9:31 - «So the CHURCH THROUGHOUT ALL Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was being built up. And walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it multiplied.»

«CHURCH THROUGHOUT ALL» in greek:
«ἐκκλησία καθ' ὅλης» (EKKLESIA KATH HOLĒS)

...

In english the roots of «KATH HOLĒS» changes wildly, so we have to look at the language that the Apostles wrote the New Testament in: greek.
...
«καθ' ὅλης» (kath' holēs) has two roots: 
1 - "κατά" (kata), meaning "according to" or "throughout"
2 - "ὅλος" (holos), meaning "whole" or "entire"

...

Now, let's look at «THE CATHOLIC CHURCH» in greek:
- «ἡ Καθολικὴ Ἐκκλησία» (hē Katholikē Ekklēsia).

...

«Καθολικὴ» (Katholikē) is just a variation of «καθ' ὅλης» (kath' holēs), as we can clearly see, they share the same two roots: 
- "κατά" (kata) and "ὅλος" (holos)

The two roots together, "κατά" (kata) "ὅλος" (holos) form the basis for the term "Catholic" in Greek... So «καθ' ὅλης» (kath' holēs) shares the exact same roots and is a variation of the greek word «Catholic».

🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦 BONUS ROUND:

 

ARGUMENT 9 - REGARDING IMPECCABILITY. CAN THE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH SIN?!

 

"Oh, but ummm, Church did bad thing 🤓☝️", or "Pope bad 🤓☝️", some may claim. The Church teaches that it is infallible but not impeccable.

...
Infallibility: This means that the Church, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is preserved from error when it definitively teaches doctrines of faith and morals. This infallibility is exercised in specific circumstances, such as when the Pope speaks ex cathedra (from the chair of Peter) or when the bishops, in union with the Pope, define doctrines in an Ecumenical Council.
...
Impeccability: This refers to the inability to sin. The Church does not claim that its members, including the Pope and bishops, are impeccable. Church leaders and members can and do commit sins. The Church's infallibility pertains to its teachings on faith and morals, not the personal sinlessness of its members.
...
Individual bishops, priests, and even Popes, as human beings, can and do sin. They can also err in their personal opinions or teachings that are not promulgated as official Church doctrine. However, this personal fallibility does not undermine the Church's infallibility when it comes to official teachings on faith and morals. The doctrine of infallibility applies only under specific conditions.

The Bible gives authority to peccable men; they have authority nonetheless.

...

“Bu-- bu-- but, pedophile priests!!!!!” - the argument stands. If I were to use this same bad argument against someone else, [that sinning invalidates the doctrine that he follows and the institution that he belongs to and the entire religion,] then:
a) if one protestant/muslim/whatever practices pedophilia, then his protestant/muslim/whatever doctrine and church would be false.
b) if one secular teacher practices pedophilia, the whole school that he belongs to and the entire education system would have to close and cease.

It is a bad argument. The Catholic Church hunts these priests that commit abominations, to purify the position and bring justice.

...

Throughout history, God has always chosen men/leaders/prophets to act as an authority for his people. Sometimes those men/leaders/prophets were morally questionable; Adam disobeyed God and caused the Fall; Noah got drunk on his wine; Moses doubted God and hit the rock for water instead of commanding it with words to give water, and was a murderer; Balaam wanted to disobey God and curse Israel; King David was an adulterer and murderer; Peter denied knowing Jesus; Thomas lacked faith; Paul martyred Christians; and Judas betrayed Jesus to His death–but this did not prevent God from working through them. Despite their personal faults, some went on to write divinely inspired Scripture, protected from error by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:13). God made sure that, despite their faults, what these men taught about the faith would be safeguarded from error (e.g., 1 Cor. 2:13; 2 Pet. 1:20-21). It is God’s grace and the guidance of the Holy Spirit that makes their teachings authoritative, not some perceived human perfection.

 

EXTRA 9.1 - COMPLEMENTARY ARGUMENT: REGARDING GALATIANS 2:11-14 (Paul VS Cephas?!)

 

*Note: when protestants give these “arguments”, their goal is to not follow the Pope, as if any of these “arguments” would even nullify his authority; such pathetic “arguments” are null; because Jesus gave authority to the Pope (the Chief Shepherd), and told him to feed us; never forget this fact. But I shall FURTHER refute these incoherent claims (because my main arguments already refuted all of these heresies), merely to embarrass heretics furthermore, extensively.

 

Possibility 1: Early Church Father Hippolytus (Chronicon, On the Seventy Apostles) wrote that among the seventy apostles, one was also named Cephas. Paul might have been addressing this other Cephas (not Peter) in Galatians 2:11-14.
...
Possibility 2: Even if Paul was addressing Peter (as the Catholic Church teaches), it poses no problem for several reasons:
- The Pope is not considered impeccable (without sin) or infallible in all his actions. Papal infallibility, only applies to official teachings on faith and morals proclaimed ex cathedra ("Pastor Aeternus"). In other words, the Pope, just like Peter, carry Papal Authority nonetheless.
- Galatians 2:11-14 shows Peter’s humility and willingness to be corrected, which highlights his leadership and does not negate his supreme authority. Paul himself recognized Peter's primacy and sought his endorsement (Galatians 1:18).
- Jesus clearly made Peter the Chief Shepherd, and we can see Peter acting as the Chief Shepherd. Every Apostolic Father submitted to the Pope (the Bishop of Rome), because he is Peter's Successor and in Peter's Chair.

 

🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦 BONUS ARGUMENT:

 

ARGUMENT 10 - THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS

 

Some protestants may claim that the Sacraments are not biblical.

The Catholic Church teaches that there are seven sacraments: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance (Reconciliation), Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony.

But as we have already seen, the Catholic Church has living authority, which the Bible makes clear. Even if the Sacraments were not mentioned in the New Testament Scriptures, they would still be validated by the Catholic Church (and so the Successors of the Apostles).

 

Truly, the Catholic Church has authority to bind and loosen, so She alone is sufficient to make these things be observed by us; I could simply cite the Catechism. Nonetheless, the Sacraments are mentioned in the Scriptures:

 

1 - Baptism:
- Matthew 28:19: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
- Acts 2:38: "Peter replied, 'Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'"

 

2 - Confirmation:
- Acts 8:14-17: "Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit."

 

3 - Eucharist (Holy Communion):
- Luke 22:19-20: "And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, 'This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.'"

*Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: “‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” (John 6:51–52). In John 6:60 we read: “Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’” (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) “After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him” (John 6:66). Thus, it is a literal teaching, for it to cause such opposition; and Jesus insisted on it. The Good Shepherd would not let His sheep depart over a mistaken interpretation. 

Jesus said: «Doth this scandalize you? [...] The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. But there are some of you that believe not.» (John 6:61-65) Jesus here said that it's literal! And those leaving thus left! Do silly protestants really think that His followers left because they were scandalized at and they didn't believe in a “hard” symbol or mere metaphor? 😹 The cause of their opposition was the literal interpretation: ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’, thus if it were not literal, they would stay. No one is scandalized by and abandons their faith over a mere symbol!... “This saying is hard, and who can hear it?” - the reaction of the crowd and Jesus's insistence prove the literal nature of it. He doesn’t soften His words or explain them as figurative; He doubles down, and says: “Will you also go away?” to the Twelve (John 6:67).

 

4 - Penance (Reconciliation):
- John 20:22-23: "And with that he breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.'"
- James 5:16: "Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective."

 

5 - Anointing of the Sick:
- James 5:14-15: "Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven."

 

6 - Holy Orders:
- Acts 6:5-6: "They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them."
- 1 Timothy 4:14: "Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through prophecy when the body of elders laid their hands on you."

 

7 - Matrimony (Marriage):
- Ephesians 5:31-32: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church."
- Matthew 19:5-6: "'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.".

...

To solidify this even further, one quick example/historical proof:
Ignatius (year 107), disciple of Saint John, wrote extensively about the Eucharist in his letters:

...1 - Letter to the Smyrnaeans 7:1 - "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again."
...
2 - Letter to the Ephesians 20:2 - "Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to show forth the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants."
...
3 - Letter to the Philadelphians 4 - "Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the unity of His blood; one altar, as there is one bishop along with the presbytery and deacons."

 

To completely destroy and embarrass heresies, I shall now quote more of what Ignatius wrote:

1 - Letter to the Smyrnaeans, chapter 8 - «See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.»
...
2 - Letter to the Magnesians, chapter 7 - "Therefore, as the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united with Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do ye anything without the bishop and presbyters."

 

🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦

 

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES - Rites, Mediator, Unity, Typologies, The Holy Spirit and Divine Guidance.

 

Catholic rites are not divisions. The Pope allows the rites, and all of the rites submit to the Pope's teachings; so they are valid and united. All submit to the Pope, and all follow the same fundamental Catholic dogmas. If the Pope and Church makes a dogma, all submit to it, no matter the rite; the rites are just decorative.

 

Jesus is the one mediator (Christ is the one and only mediator of redemption), which means that Christ gave us the capacity to be able to reach the Father. We can only reach the Father through the Son... We have to reach and obey the Son to reach the Father!... So, to truly follow and obey Jesus: Christ gave authority to and told us to submit to the Church, Apostles, and Sacraments, which mean that to reach/obey the Son, it is through the Catholic Church and the one that holds the Son's Keys: the Pope. So, since Jesus said so, we must submit to the Pope to reach the Son, so that we can reach the Father!

 

The Old Testament is a preparation for the New Testament: Jesus is the New David; Saint Peter is the New Eliakim; Holy Mary Mother of God is the New Ark of the Covenant; the Catholic Church is the New (Noah's) Ark of Salvation and also the New Israel. The Eucharist is the New Passover and the New Manna. Baptism is the New Circumcision.

 

The Holy Spirit does not guide protestants; that would mean that the Holy Spirit motivates contradictory things.
...
For example: one protestant believes that he can pray to Saints, and another protestant believes that it is necromancy, an abomination. Instantly, just with this single topic, the Holy Spirit did not inspire both, because the Holy Spirit does not teach or motivate lies, contradictions, evil, and divisions.
...
Christians, from the very first and for the ENTIRE first Millennium, submitted to the Pope (all were Catholic: the first Apostles and their successors - these were definitely guided by the Holy Spirit, just as Jesus promised); this instantly means that Catholicism is what the Holy Spirit motivated and protected. Any idea that appears and contradicts this is a heresy, it is against the Holy Spirit.

 

🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦

 

NOTES - CHURCH FATHERS VS ECUMENICAL COUNCILS?! CONTRADICTING DOCTRINE?!

 

Some protestants, in their blind, incoherent, and animalistic ways, may cite one Church Father that said one specific apparent thing that he likes, or that seems to contradict the other Church Fathers or Councils, in order to somehow avoid becoming Catholic.

But this pathetic logic falls on its own - first of all, all of the Successors of the Apostles followed the Pope and were Catholics, so by appealing to them, even partly, you are recognizing not only his authority and position, but also the authority of the Catholic Church to which they all belonged. To truly follow them, you would also have to be Catholic.
The simple fact is that the Church Father being appealed to was a Catholic bishop with the authority to guide and teach; it is ironic and illogical for protestants to selectively quote Church Fathers in an attempt to avoid becoming Catholic, especially since these Fathers were themselves devout Catholics who upheld Catholic doctrine and submitted to the authority of the Pope and the Catholic Church. By appealing to Church Fathers, protestants are inadvertently recognizing the very Catholic tradition they seek to reject.

...

It is inconsistent to use the writings of a Church Father to defend non-Catholic beliefs while ignoring the fact that these Fathers embraced the foundational doctrines of the Catholic Church, including its sacramental theology and hierarchical authority. Protestants cannot partially accept the teachings of a Catholic Church Father without acknowledging the Catholic context and authority in which those teachings were formed, and the authority of the Catholic Church's Hierarchy that he belonged to.

 

- Secondly, you can't limit yourself to a single Father of the Church, as if that would weaken Catholic Doctrine or nullify the authority of Ecumenical Councils. The opinion of a Church Father is not over established dogma. Individual Church Fathers do not have the authority to bind and loose. Ecumenical Councils represent the collective teaching authority (Magisterium) of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13).
...
The power to bind and loose, given by Christ to the Apostles (Matthew 18:18), does not depend on individual Fathers. It is exercised mainly through the Ecumenical Councils (Acts 15:18), and the Pope (Matthew 16:18-19) at certain times. 

It is above all through the Ecumenical Councils that the power to bind and loose is used; these decisions are dogmatic and binding for all Christians.

A bishop alone does not have the faculty to bind the entire Church. The authority to bind and loose is exercised in a collegial manner, meaning it is done collectively, particularly in Ecumenical Councils where bishops act in union with the Pope. 
...
While an individual bishop has authority within his own diocese to teach, govern, and sanctify, he cannot make binding doctrinal declarations for the Universal Church on his own. This power is only exercised through the Church's Magisterium, either:
1 - Collegially: in an Ecumenical Council with the Pope (Acts 15; Matthew 18:20);
2 - Solemnly: when the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra (Matthew 16:18-19).

 

🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦

 

MINI-ARGUMENT: HAVING FAITH IN GOD MEANS TO DO THE WORKS THAT HE WILLS. “ONCE SAVED, ALWAYS SAVED” CONTRADICTS THE BIBLE

 

PART I

Matthew 7:21-23 - «Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.»

...

Jesus said that it’s not merely verbal profession of faith that matters, but doing the will of the Father - remember how Abraham was tested. (Read: James 2.)
«Doing the will of the Father» = means that you must do the works/actions that God wills.

James 2:14-17 - «What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? And if a brother or sister be naked, and want daily food: And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit? So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself.»

...
So since God wills that you follow the Church founded upon Peter, the Pope, and the bishops, if you have faith, you will do the works and obey. In other words, you cannot be a true follower with faith if you reject the works of following the Pope and Catholic Church.

...

The Catholic Church is the Church of Christ founded upon Peter, being led by the Pope that Christ put in place as the Chief Shepherd to guide us (Matthew 16:18-19); rejecting the Catholic Church and the Pope is rejecting Christ; the Catholic Church is the Body of Christ (Colossians 1:18); no man cometh to the Father, but by the Son (John 14:6), so you must not reject the Son's Body (the Catholic Church); only those that do the will of the Father who is in Heaven shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 7:21-23)... The will of the Father includes accepting the fullness of truth revealed by Christ, which is preserved and taught by the Catholic Church that Christ founded; the Catholic Church is the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15).

 

The Magisterium has the authority given by Christ to bind and loosen; thus, this is what the teaching is:

CCC 1814-1815 - «Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us [...]. By faith, “man freely commits his entire self to God”. For this reason the believer seeks to know and do God's will. [...] “Faith apart from works is dead”.»

 

PART II

Jesus said: «But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved.» (Matthew 24:13)

So whoever does not persevere till the end shall not be saved.

 

Hebrews 10:26-27: "For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries."

 

«Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue on his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.» (Romans 11:22) Also check: Hebrews 6:4-6, 1 Corinthians 9:27, and 2 Peter 2:20-22.

 

Korah and the men who followed him rejected the authority of Moses and Aaron (Numbers
16:3), they sinned in doing so (Numbers 16:22, 26, 38), thus they were punished by God. Rejecting the authorities God puts in place is a sin; we must submit to the Catholic Church and to the Roman Pontiff.

 

🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦

 

MINI-ARGUMENTS - IDOLATRY, REPETITIVE PRAYER, AND CALL NO MAN FATHER??

 

*Note: if a protestant accuses Catholics of any of these three things, then it means that he needs to bite the curb and be curb-stomped while being filmed in 4K, lossless MP4.

 

🔔🔔🔔

 

MINI-ARGUMENT - IDOLATRY:

If you read the entire Pentateuch, idolatry refers to treating objects as if the objects are gods.

We respect images of real things; we know images are not gods, but there are images that merely represent the real God, or represent the Saints. So naturally we must respect these images because they represent the real entities.

Exodus 32:4-6 - (Regarding the golden calf): “He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, “These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.”
...
Deuteronomy 7:25-26: “The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire”
...
Deuteronomy 8:19-20: “And if you forget the Lord your God and go after other gods and serve them and worship them, I solemnly warn you today that you shall surely perish”

It is a fact that idolatry is only when you treat an image as if it is a god. If you merely respect an image, knowing that it is not god, it is not idolatry.
...
God Himself commanded the creation of images:
1 - The Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25:10-22)
1.1 - Cherubim on the Ark (Exodus 25:18-20)
2 - The Bronze Serpent (Numbers 21:4-9)
3 - Images and Embroidery in the Tabernacle and Priestly Garments (Exodus 26-28)

 

Us Catholics do these:
1. Latria – Worship given to God alone.
2. Dulia – Veneration given to saints, etc...
3. Hyperdulia – Elevated veneration given exclusively to the Holy Virgin Mary.

...

“Idolatry” is idol+latria. We do not give latria to anything except God.

...

- An image that represents Christ: honor; veneration; dulia.

- The Eucharist: Christ is truly among us; latria.

 

🔔🔔🔔

 

MINI-ARGUMENT: REPETITIVE PRAYER

Matthew 6:7 does not condemn repetitive/persistent prayer; it condemns empty prayers that are stretched or repeated as if it would help the emptiness (lack of true sincerity, value, and love).

The Bible even has repetitive prayer:

➡️ Psalm 136: This psalm repeats the phrase “His love endures forever” in each of its 26 verses. 

➡️ Jesus prayed repetitively in the Garden of Gethsemane: Matthew 26:39, 42, 44: Jesus prayed three times for the same thing.
- Matthew 26:39: "And going a little further, he fell upon his face, praying and saying: My Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt."
- Matthew 26:42: "He went again the second time and prayed, saying: My Father, if this chalice may not pass away, but I must drink it, thy will be done."
- Matthew 26:44: "And leaving them, he went again: and he prayed the third time, saying the same word."

➡️ The parable in Luke 18:1-8 shows that God values persistent and sincere requests.

 

🔔🔔🔔

 

MINI-ARGUMENT: CALL NO MAN FATHER??

Jesus was addressing the Pharisees's hypocrisy and love for titles and positions of honor, not giving a literal prohibition against using the term “father”.
To prove this, even the APOSTLE PAUL, guided by the Holy Spirit, wrote: «For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.» [1 Corinthians 4:15]
Hah; repent and become Catholic.
...
Jesus said "call no man father" because He wanted to warn against elevating anyone to the level of God the Father, especially in religious leadership. He was correcting the Pharisees, who sought authority for their own glory rather than for God's glory. Jesus was teaching humility and reminding us that all true authority comes from God. But He still established a Church hierarchy under His divine authority, with spiritual fathers like the Pope and bishops to guide us in faith.

 

🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦

 

NOTES - Many churches?! “Catholic” VS Constantine. SAINT IGNATIUS!

 

Some protestants enjoy claiming that there is not one Church, but merely many separate churches, usually misinterpreting Matthew 18:20. I shall eviscerate such heresy further!
...
There are "churches", groups of believers who come together to praise God, and there is the Catholic Church that Jesus built upon Peter (Matthew 16:18-19). This implies that the "churches" are apart of the One Catholic Church (in communion with the Catholic Church; with the Pope, Magisterium and bishops).
All valid churches are and must be part of the Catholic Church.
*Read ARGUMENTS 1, 2, 3, and 4; the Catholic Church is the Body of Christ, One, must be United and have no divisions; also, we must be fed by Peter/the Pope; all “churches” must submit to the Pope and Roman Catholic Church.

 

The Council of Nicaea (year 325) did not create nor name the Catholic Church “Catholic”.
As we saw in ARGUMENT 8, the Bible has a variation of the name, which is the early variation, origin, and roots of the word “Catholic”.
...
As we already saw (ARGUMENT 3) in the Bible, the Church mentioned in the Bible was One Body/Hierarchy, United; all of the local churches were One Church, in the same Unity and Hierarchy of Authority, following their superiors; this same Hierarchy of Authority (which all of the first Apostles belonged to, and also all of their successors) is indeed this same Catholic Church.

...

To further solidify this fact, I can just give this example to add to the rest I already gave (such as Saint Paul's Letter to Corinth, and Pope Clement's Letter to Corinth):
- Apostle John had a DISCIPLE and SUCCESSOR called Ignatius, and Apostle John put him as the bishop of the Church of Antioch (one of the first local churches mentioned in the Bible - Acts 11:26, 13:1). As we have already seen, the Bible already validated Ignatius's authority - the Apostles/bishops/elders ordained him, just like Timothy was ordained.
...
Ignatius, bishop of the Church of Antioch, already revealed the name in year 107; he wrote letters, for each local church:
- To the Church of Ephesus, to the Church of Magnesia, to the Church of Tralleso, TO THE CHURCH OF ROME, to the Church of Philadelphia, and to the Church of Smyrna.

 

Year 107: Ignatius wrote to the Church of Smyrna [8:2] - “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
In other words, Ignatius just revealed that all local churches (THE CHURCH OF ROME, Antioch, Smyrna, and all the rest that is in the Unity) all belong to the same Unity, Body, and Hierarchy, called: the Catholic Church.

 

🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦

 

NOTES - Red herrings refuted: Succession is a one-time thing?! Bishop vs elder?! The Church of Rome had no Bishop in the early times, but instead an equal group?! Pope Clement was not the Bishop of Rome/the Pope?! Saint Peter was never at Rome?! Peter was the bishop of Antioch so this nullifies the Papacy?!? Ignatius is not trustworthy?!

 

Intro: in this part, I copied and pasted my refutation against a prot - this part is great if you are Catholic and want to destroy the incoherent and pathetic prot tactics. Protestants act primarily through red herrings; after all of the wrecking they have suffered, they somehow claim something that changes nothing, as if it would mean that "they can stay non-Catholic", as if any of my arguments would be nullified. Protestants 😹🔥‼️
Because even if these incoherent prot claims hypothetically were true, the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church would still be the Church that Jesus built upon Peter, and protestantism would still be false. The Church and the Papacy would still be true, and we would still have to be Catholic and submit to Rome 🗣‼️🇻🇦
Never let them give red herrings; you don't have to refute the red herring (because it is a pathetic null statement)!... BUT!... I like to brutally embarrass protestants, so let's refute it anyway!

1️⃣ - Succession is a normative thing and not a one-time thing; when we look at and conjugate these passages, it is clear that the norm is that there should be a continuous line of succession:
...
1 Timothy 4:14 - Paul instructs Timothy not to neglect the gift he has received through the laying on of hands by Paul and the elders.
...
Titus 1:5 - Paul instructs Titus to appoint elders in every town, implying a succession of leadership.
...
2 Timothy 2:2 - Paul instructs Timothy to entrust what he has learned to faithful people who will be able to teach others also.

To add to this, since Peter feeds us, and is the Rock and the Steward with the Keys, that binds and loosens, it is a necessity that the Peter continuously exists through his successors; it is a necessity that the Stewardship continues.

2️⃣ - In the New Testament, the terms "elder" (presbyteros) and "bishop" (episkopos) are often used interchangeably. Over time, a distinction developed, with "bishop" referring to a higher level of oversight.
...
For example, in Titus 1:5-7, Paul instructs Titus to appoint elders (presbyteroi) and then immediately describes the qualifications for a bishop (episkopos), implying the terms are synonymous. Similarly, in Acts 20:17, 28, Paul calls the elders (presbyteroi) of the church in Ephesus and refers to them as overseers (episkopoi), indicating a single group with dual titles.
...
I shall quote a disciple and Successor of Saint John, Ignatius, the bishop of the Catholic Church of Antioch:
...
Letter to the Smyrnaeans, chapter 8 (year 107) - «See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.»
...
*Note: Saint Ignatius taught that a church requires a bishop, and cannot operate without one - a bishop is fundamental. In other words, this proves that the Church of Rome did have a bishop. Conjugate with the following:

3️⃣ - Ignatius also wrote to the Roman Catholic Church [4:3]: “I do not give you orders like Peter and Paul gave you orders.” (this shows that Peter founded the Roman Catholic Church).
...
Peter himself chose successors. Peter himself verified that there should be succession for his Papal Position; Peter himself chose men to succeed him, including Pope Clement.
...
TERTULLIAN OF CARTHAGE (155-240)
Document: The Prescription Against Heretics
Chapter XXII:
➡️ "Peter, who is called 'the rock on which the Church is to be built'."
Chapter XXXII:
➡️ "Like the Church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; likewise the Church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in the same way by Peter."
...
IRENAEUS OF LION (successor of St. John)
Document: Against Heresies (year 160)
Book III, chapter I, verse I:
➡️ "Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundations of the Church."
Book III, chapter III, verse II:
➡️ "The very great, very ancient and universally known Church, founded and organized in Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul. It is a matter of necessity that all churches should agree with this Church, because of its pre-eminent authority."
Book III, chapter III, verse III:
➡️ "The blessed Apostles, having founded and built up the Church, entrusted the episcopate to the hands of Linus.... And then Anacletus, and then Clement, were entrusted with the bishopric."

4️⃣ - So Pope Clement was Peter's Successor.
Pope Clement in year 90 wrote a letter to the Catholic Church of Corinth (chapters 59 and 60): «God speaks through us (Pope+Roman Church), so obey what we say or else be in transgression».
...
This shows that the Pope and the Roman Church have Universal Supreme Jurisdiction.
...
The Church of Corinth obeyed, and even considered the Papal Letter as Sacred, because the Pope wrote it.
...
The entire Church (all Apostles and all of their Successors) in the first Millennium was Catholic and submitted to the Pope. If you reject the Pope, you reject the entire first Millennium of Apostles and Successors, which the Bible tells you to follow.
...
Council of Nicaea, arabic canon 39: «He who occupies the chair of Rome is the Head and Prince of all patriarchs, with power over the whole Church.»

...

First of all, you should by now acknowledge that if you do not submit to the Catholic Church and specially to the Roman Catholic Church, you contradict the Church founded upon Peter and the Apostles, and all of the Apostles and their successors.
🇻🇦
"Clement was not the bishop; he wrote on behalf of the multiple presbyters in Rome. The evidence as presented by Roman Catholic scholar Eamon Duffy is that there was no bishopric in Rome until at least 180 AD" ➡️ There is no evidence. Quoting a Catholic does not mean that his opinion is infallible; lil bro is wrong. And here's the funny part: even if your argument were true, you would still have to submit to the Roman Catholic Church... So you're playing a game in which you can never win. Even if your imagination claims that the Bishop of Rome started only in year 180, you would still have to follow the Pope, since the Bible tells you to follow the Church founded upon Peter and the Apostolic Successors, and all of the Apostolic Successors and the Church founded upon Peter recognized and submitted to the Pope; the entire CATHOLIC Church and Jesus Himself (Matthew 16:18-19) disagree with you. Become Catholic 🤫🧏🏻‍♂️
...
The true evidence (which is what the ENTIRE Church recorded and taught) actually says that there is an unbroken line of Popes since Pope Saint Peter, and that Pope Clement is the fourth Pope!
🇻🇦
"Clement never claimed to be the bishop of Rome" ➡️ He was a disciple and Successor of Saint Peter, and acted with supreme authority in his letter. Also, all of the Early Church Fathers recognized that Pope Clement was the disciple and Successor of Peter, and the fourth Bishop of Rome; the fourth Pope!
...
TERTULLIAN OF CARTHAGE (155-240)
Document: The Prescription Against Heretics
Chapter XXXII:
➡️ "Like the Church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; likewise the Church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in the same way by Peter."
...
IRENAEUS OF LION (successor of St. John)
Document: Against Heresies (year 160)
Book III, chapter I, verse I:
➡️ "Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundations of the Church."
Book III, chapter III, verse III:
➡️ "The blessed Apostles, having founded and built up the Church, entrusted the episcopate to the hands of Linus.... And then Anacletus, and then Clement, was entrusted with the bishopric."
...
EUSEBIUS OF CESAREA (265-339)
Document: Church History
XXI, verse 1
➡️ "At this time the Romans were still ruled by Clement, who also occupied the third place of those who were bishops there AFTER Paul and Peter. The first was Linus, and then Anacletus."
XXVIII, verse 3 [5:28:3]
➡️ "Victor was the thirteenth bishop of Rome SINCE Peter."
...
SAINT AUGUSTINE (412)
Document: Letters 53:1:2
“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found”
...
HERMAS (80)
Document: The Shepherd 2:4:3
“Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty”
...
DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH (170)
Document: Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History
4:23:11
“Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement”
...
POPE CLEMENT I
Document: Letter to the Corinthians (year 80-90)
42:4–5; 44:1–3
“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry”

 

5️⃣ Prot red herring: “Peter never went to Rome” 😹

- As already shown, the Bible tells us that the Roman church is apostolic and great. With this fact alone, it means that the Roman church is valid and we should be in communion with this church.
...
Plus, here's a simple thing that wrecks protestants: Saint Peter didn't actually need to go to Rome (even though he did) for the Roman church to be valid; because Saint Peter is the Rock of the entire Church (the Roman church is apart of the entire church). What I'm saying is that: Saint Peter is the Rock of the entire One United Church which is all Catholic churches (because Jesus said so), even if he wasn't in every single local church! So, even if he hypothetically never had went to the Roman church, the Roman church would still be built upon Saint Peter! The Pope is the Chief of the Apostles, and the Bible tells us that the Roman church is apostolic, so instantly, whether the Chief was there or not, the Chief is always the Rock of the entire Church, and Chief of all of the Apostles.

- Ofcourse, Saint Peter did go to Rome, as the Bible hints at (Babylon), and the entire Church, Tradition, and Apostolic Successors teaches (the Bible tells us to follow all of these three). One quick example: Saint John's student (Saint Ignatius) wrote that Saint Peter went to Rome! The entire Church taught that Saint Peter was the first Pope and Bishop of Rome.
...
Furthermore, Saint Peter is literally buried beneath Saint Peter's Basilica in Vatican City. His tomb is located in the Necropolis under the basilica's main altar, known as the Confessio or Altar of the Chair.
...
Excavations conducted in the 1940s uncovered a shrine and relics that are widely believed to be those of Saint Peter, further proving the long-standing tradition of his burial at this sacred site.

 

6️⃣ Peter was the bishop of Antioch so this nullifies the Papacy?!?!

Saint Peter was the bishop of Antioch first. Around year 42, Saint Peter left Antioch, got to Rome, and with Saint Paul founded the Church of Rome (Roman Catholic Church) and became the first Bishop of Rome.
...
Some protestants and heterodox schismatics use these red herrings: “If the Bishop of Rome is above the rest, then that makes the bishop of Antioch have equal authority!”, or: “Peter was the bishop of Antioch before Rome, so Antioch is where the Pope should be, and this nullifies the bishop of Rome's authority!” (ofcourse, heretics who use these red herrings are hypocrites and inconsistent, because they completely reject and do not even follow the church of Antioch 😹)
...
Refutation: the church of Antioch never claimed to have Universal Jurisdiction, nor that the Cathedra of Saint Peter is in Antioch; on the contrary, every Church Father and the entire Church in the first Millennium agreed that the Cathedra of Saint Peter is with the Church of Rome, and so all followed the Bishop of Rome as he is the Chief with Universal Jurisdiction. The church of Antioch accepted the Papacy in the Ecumenical Councils.
...
Epic destruction:
The direct disciple/student and successor of Saint John, Saint Ignatius (bishop of the church of Antioch), wrote a letter to the Roman church in year 107:
3:1 - «You were never envious of anyone; you taught others. As for me, I want what you have taught me to remain firm.» - This shows that the Church of Rome is the Teacher to the other churches, because of the preeminent position; and even Ignatius, bishop of the church of Antioch, learned from the Roman Church.

...

Some heretics cope so hard that they reject Saint Ignatius as a legitimate authority 😹 They claim that he wanted to be martyred, so isn't trustworthy and had no authority, for some reason 😹😹😹

...

Saint Ignatius yearned for martyrdom. Why would you judge him?
- In Matthew 5:10-12, Jesus said: «Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven.» 🗣📣🔊 Ignatius's desire for martyrdom aligns beautifully with this teaching; Ignatius rejoiced and was glad.
...
And another sucessor of Saint John, Saint Irenaeus (bishop of the church of Lyons, which is in France), wrote Against Heresies in year 160:
Book III, chapter III, verse II:
«The very great, very ancient and universally known Church, founded and organized in
Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul. It is a matter of necessity that all
churches should agree with this Church, because of its pre-eminent authority.»

...

Bonus points‼️🔥
The Synod of Antioch (year 269) - During the condemnation of Paul of Samosata, this Antiochene synod appealed to Rome's authority to confirm its decision.
The synodical letter of the Council of Antioch was addressed to Dionysius Bishop of Rome. The Synod did not know that this Pope died in the month of December 269: thus the letter was given to his successor, Felix I., who wrote immediately to Bishop Maximus and the clergy of Alexandria to define the orthodox faith of the Church with greater clearness against the errors of Paul of Samosata.

 

🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦

 

Notes - “Radtrads” (false Catholics): sedevacantists and nazis are not Catholics.

 

🏳️‍🌈✨ SEDEVACANTISM 🏳️‍🌈✨

...

Intro: I copied this from a debate I had against a few sedevacantists. These arguments also refute “Catholics” who don't accept all of the binding/authoritative teachings of the Magisterium, Pope, and Catechism.

...

Sedevacantists are heretics because they reject the Magisterium, which is contrary to the promise of Christ that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church founded upon Peter (Matthew 16:18). By claiming that the Magisterium is corrupted and has lost authority, sedevacantists inadvertently undermine their own position.
...
If the Magisterium were truly invalid, then there would be no legitimate authority to consecrate bishops, including those of the SSPX. This would mean that all bishops, including SSPX bishops, are invalid. Therefore, rejecting the Magisterium not only contradicts Christ's promise but also leads to the logical conclusion that no valid episcopal lineage exists, undermining their own claims of legitimacy.
...
Even if hypothetically it were true that the Pope commited heresies worthy of him being nullified as the Pope, the solution would be to wait within the Church for the Magisterium to select a new Pope, but the sedevacantists "create" their own church that contradicts the Magisterium and that has no Pope, so the sedevacantist church would be illegitimate.
...
The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei: “They (SSPX) are not properly incardinated in a diocese or religious institute in full communion with the Holy See.”
...
The POPE is above of the pyramid of authority. You reject and do not submit to the CHIEF to follow lesser authorities - this is called schism; you are outside of the Church; you disobey the Magisterium.
...
Sedevacantists think that they are correct but they are just doing the exact thing that "orthodox" and Luther and protestants do. None of y'all have authority. No Magisterium for y'all. No Apostolicity for y'all. They think: "Pope bad so I schism".
...
God gave the Pope the faculty to BIND AND LOOSEN! If one Pope loosens, he or another can bind, and vice-versa! Because he has the Supreme Authority to do so! That's why he's the TOP CHIEF 🗣‼️🇻🇦
...
The Pope can “contradict” (bind/loosen) other Popes's teachings as long as infallible teachings are not being contradicted. A Catholic must follow not only infallible teachings, but even non-infallible teachings, because they are still binding and authoritative 🗣‼️ YOU MUST OBEY ALL OF THE CURRENT BINDING/LOOSENING 🗣‼️ IT'S ALL ABOUT BINDING AND LOOSENING, LIL BRO 🗣‼️🇻🇦

Sedevacantism is just a type of protestantism. Submit to Rome.

...

Lumen Gentium is binding on all Catholics:
25. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

...

Sad that I need to say this to a “Catholic”... Submit to the Pope.

 

🏳️‍🌈✨ NAZISM 🏳️‍🌈✨

 

Intro: this is copied from a debate I had against a nazi claiming to be Catholic. I explained how it's an impossibility.
...
Why be a nazi when you can just be ✨Catholic✨❔🤗
...
Many logically dislike judaism, but irrationally turn to nazism; that's not a valid reason. Catholicism also opposes judaism, yet it offers a moral, rational approach. Catholicism is true; nazism is wrong and contradicts Catholicism. Dislike judaism without becoming nazi.
...
In 1933, the Vatican signed the Reich Concordat with Nazi Germany to protect the rights of the Catholic Church in germany, including freedom of worship and Catholic schools (this was before the nazi plan of genocide was known). The Nazis quickly violated the Concordat, closing Catholic schools, persecuting clergy, and suppressing Church activities.
...
In response, Pope Pius XI issued the 1937 encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge, which condemned the racism, neopaganism, and anti-Christian policies in Germany.
...
Nazism directly contradicts Catholicism; nazism is intrinsically racist, genocidal, and neopagan; it is incompatible with Catholicism.
...
The word I use changes nothing; "nazi", "follower of Hitler", "Reich appreciator"; any form of appreciation towards Hitler or any of his doctrine is to be rejected. The Catholic Church rejects (and has always rejected) Reich doctrine.
...
- The extermination mentioned does include the jews even if not mentioned by name, because the Nuremberg Laws were already in action against the jews (since 1935), and the encyclical (1937) made it clear that the Reich had evil racial doctrine.
- The “extermination” is not only towards Catholics; the Reich did not initiate genocide against Catholics, only persecution. The jews in 1937 were also being persecuted. So if the Pope calls the persecution of the Catholics "extermination", then the persecution of the jews is also "extermination".
...
This encyclical was made primarily to protect Catholics in Germany against the Reich/nazis, and it insists that Catholics cannot become nazis. This encyclical is a judgement against nazism, from start to finish.
...
Mit Brennender Sorge (1937):
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI
ON THE CHURCH AND THE GERMAN REICH
TO THE VENERABLE BRETHREN
THE ARCHBISHOPS AND BISHOPS OF GERMANY AND OTHER ORDINARIES
IN PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE.
...
3. When, in 1933, We consented, Venerable Brethren, to open negotiations for a concordat, which the Reich Government proposed on the basis of a scheme of several years' standing; and when, to your unanimous satisfaction, We concluded the negotiations by a solemn treaty, We were prompted by the desire, as it behooved Us, to secure for Germany the freedom of the Church's beneficent mission and the salvation of the souls in her care, as well as by the sincere wish to render the German people a service essential for its peaceful development and prosperity. Hence, despite many and grave misgivings, We then decided not to withhold Our consent for We wished to spare the Faithful of Germany, as far as it was humanly possible, the trials and difficulties they would have had to face, given the circumstances, had the negotiations fallen through. It was by acts that We wished to make it plain, Christ's interests being Our sole object, that the pacific and maternal hand of the Church would be extended to anyone who did not actually refuse it.
...
4. If, then, the tree of peace, which we planted on German soil with the purest intention, has not brought forth the fruit, which in the interest of your people, We had fondly hoped, no one in the world who has eyes to see and ears to hear will be able to lay the blame on the Church and on her Head. The experiences of these last years have fixed responsibilities and laid bare intrigues, which [the Reich] from the outset only aimed at a war of extermination [exterminating primarily the Catholic Church; so no one can simultaneously be Catholic and nazi! In 1935, the Nuremberg Laws were enacted, and jews were already being persecuted, and in 1941 the nazis extended the extermination to also fully include the jews.]
...
7. Whoever identifies, by pantheistic confusion, God and the universe, by either lowering God to the dimensions of the world, or raising the world to the dimensions of God, is not a believer in God. Whoever follows that so-called pre-Christian Germanic conception of substituting a dark and impersonal destiny for the personal God, denies thereby the Wisdom and Providence of God who "Reacheth from end to end mightily, and ordereth all things sweetly" (Wisdom viii. 1). Neither is he a believer in God. 
...
8. Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community - however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things - whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds.
...
17. The peak of the revelation as reached in the Gospel of Christ is final and permanent. It knows no retouches by human hand; it admits no substitutes or arbitrary alternatives such as certain leaders pretend to draw from the so-called myth of race and blood.
...
18. The Church founded by the Redeemer is one, the same for all races and all nations. Beneath her dome, as beneath the vault of heaven, there is but one country for all nations and tongues; there is room for the development of every quality, advantage, task and vocation which God the Creator and Savior has allotted to individuals as well as to ethnical communities.
...
22. Should men, who are not even united by faith in Christ, come and offer you the seduction of a national German Church, be convinced that it is nothing but a denial of the one Church of Christ and the evident betrayal of that universal evangelical mission, for which a world Church alone is qualified and competent.
...
23. You will need to watch carefully, Venerable Brethren, that religious fundamental concepts be not emptied of their content and distorted to profane use. "Revelation" in its Christian sense, means the word of God addressed to man. The use of this word for the "suggestions" of race and blood, for the irradiations of a people's history, is mere equivocation. False coins of this sort do not deserve Christian currency.
...
34. No one would think of preventing young Germans establishing a true ethnical community in a noble love of freedom and loyalty to their country. What We object to is the voluntary and systematic antagonism raised between national education and religious duty.

 

🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦

 

Notes - Destruction of islam and mormonism

 

🏳️‍🌈✨ ISLAM 🏳️‍🌈✨

...

Intro: my notes against islam are extreme. There are so many arguments, but I shall only copy 2 of them; more than enough!

...

1 - INJIL ARGUMENT:

Quran (5:47) says that us Christians have the Injil and that we must judge by it. Judging by the Injil, Jesus is Lord; become Catholic. We still have the manuscripts of the Bible from that time and before - all (around 25 thousand) manuscripts agree that Jesus is God.
...
Quran 5:47 - "And let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, then those are the defiantly disobedient."
...
Quran 5:68 - "Say, 'O People of the Scripture, you are standing on nothing until you uphold the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord.'"
...
5:68 by saying that the Christians must judge by the Gospel, means that the quran confirms the validity of it at that moment. We still have the manuscripts that the quran verifies. Same as now.
...
7:157: "Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Injil."
...
Quran 61:14 - "So Allah supported the disciples of Jesus against their enemy, and they became dominant."... All of Jesus's disciples belonged to the same Catholic Church; the Catholic Church dominated/prevailed, so the quran claims that Allah made the Church.
...
So the quran (61:14) basically says that Allah helped the disciples prevail; the Catholic Church prevailed, so Allah founded the Catholic Church. All Early Church Fathers taught that Jesus is Lord, and to submit to His Catholic Church and the Pope.
...
The quran claims that the Christians have the valid (not corrupted) Injil with Muhammad's name. All manuscripts used at that time are the same as now; in all, Jesus is Lord, and Muhammad is not found.

...

2 - AISHA ARGUMENT:

Muhammad (54 years old) married Aisha of 6 years of age, with consummation when she was 9 (Muhammad was 57). Islam's own “sahih” (authentic) sources and tradition reveal it.

...

(Sahih) Sunan Abi Dawud 2121 - Narrated 'Aishah: «The Messenger of Allah had intercourse with me when I was NINE (9) years old.»

...

1️⃣ Sahih Muslim 8:3311 - “Aisha at consumation (9yo) took her dolls with her”
2️⃣ Sahih al-Bukhari 8:73:151 - 
“Playing with dolls is forbidden, but allowed for Aisha cuz she was a little girl, not yet reached puberty” 3️⃣ Al-Khattabi (year 931) - “Playing with dolls... The only reason why permission in this was given to 'Aa'isha is because SHE HAD NOT, AT THAT TIME, REACHED THE AGE OF PUBERTY.” 4️⃣ Sunan Abi Dawud 4932 says that Aisha STILL HAD dolls at the battle of Khaybar (SHE STILL WAS PRE-PUBESCENT AT 14!). Aisha only stopped having dolls at the battle of Tabook (15 years old), when she had her first menstruation. 😊 Muhammad was a pedaishaphile 😊

...

I'm not even going to mention what Muhammad did to grown men, little boys, and animals 😳‼️

 

🏳️‍🌈✨ MORMONISM 🏳️‍🌈✨

 

Mormons believe that the Catholic Church is in apostasy, and that Mormonism is the right line and the only right way, with "the new gospel that they received".

 ...

BUT, OBSERVE:

 ...

Galations 1:1-12 - "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema."

 ...

Matthew 16:18 - Jesus says that the gates of hell will not prevail over the Church founded on Peter.
- SO THIS THEORY OF "APOSTASY" FROM THE TRUE CHURCH IS IMPOSSIBLE; IT GOES AGAINST THE BIBLE!

...

Joseph Smith practiced polygamy (contrary to biblical and moral teaching). He also commited many degenerate crimes and was sentenced guilty; disorderly person; assault against his brother-in-law Calvin, husband of Smith's sister Sophronia; illegal banking; conspiracy to murder Grandison Newell; banking fraud; threats to Judge Adam Black (Smith surrounded his house with an armed group); treason; arrest for fleeing; conspiracy to murder Governor Boggs; perjury, fornication, and polygamy; destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor; and much more, multiple times.

...

Now let's look at mormon books:

 ...

Doctrine and Covenants 130:22 - This book says that God the Father has a physical body with flesh and bones.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/130?lang=eng
- It's a lie, of course. John 4:24 says that God is spirit, and Luke 24:39 says that a spirit does not have flesh and bones.
- I don't even need to quote the Bible; God created matter; the physical is God's creation, so God cannot be matter.

 ...

Doctrine and Covenants 130:3
- Joseph Smith himself says that it is false that God the Father and the Son can remain in the heart of man.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/130?lang=eng
- The funny part is that mormon doctrine contradicts itself. Another mormon book, Alma 34:36, says that God the Father can abide in the heart of man.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/alma/34?lang=eng

 ...

Mormons believe in three gods:
- "We declare it is self-evident from the scriptures that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are separate persons, *three divine beings*."
- "Blablabla, we believe in three divine beings." - This goes against the Trinity that the true Church has always recognized; the three persons are only one God.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2007/10/the-only-true-god-and-jesus-christ-whom-he-hath-sent?lang=eng

 ...

Joseph Smith argued that there were three gods, but another mormon book contradicts what he said:
Testimony of Three Witnesses (read the one at the end)
- "And honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, who is one God."
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/three?lang=eng

 ...

Doctrine and Covenants 132:20-21
- It says that when people die, they will become gods.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng

 ...

Abraham 3:2-3
- This mormon book says that God lives near a planet called Kolob.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/abr/3?lang=eng
- Impossible! God doesn't live in the physical world!

 ...

2 Nephi 5:21
This mormon book says that God punished people by changing their race/phenotype to black. Joseph Smith = racist
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/5?lang=eng

 ...

Journal of Discourses 10:110
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/journal-of-discourses?lang=eng
(The mormon program says it's an official book, but doesn't let you read it on the program, because it knows it's insane; I found it on another website:) www.jod.mrm.org/10/104#110
- "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so."

 

🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦

 

MINI-ARGUMENT - SCIENCE VS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH?! DESTRUCTION OF ATHEISM

 

*Note: I shall talk about heliocentrism and Galileo, flat Earth, accusations of plagiarism regarding the Genesis Creation account, and then I am going to wreck atheism, and refute the “square circle” argument. All with quick, simple, destructive arguments.

 

🔔🔔🔔

 

Catholics are the ones who proved that heliocentrism is true.

...

Catholic astronomers Galileo and Nicolaus Copernicus developed the heliocentric model, and then Catholic Jesuit priests made significant contributions to the doctrine.

...

The Catholic Church never rejected heliocentrism. Initially, She was cautious due to the lack of conclusive evidence at the time. The conflict with Galileo was more about his assertiveness in declaring it fact without sufficient proof, rather than a doctrinal rejection of the heliocentric model itself. Galileo was an insolent man that wanted to state something as a fact without sufficient proof; that's why it was a necessity to censor him; the Church let him do his research, but just wanted him to treat it as a theory instead of a fact, unless there was proof.

...

In other words: the Church awaited sufficient scientific evidence before fully accepting heliocentrism, ensuring that faith and reason aligned properly with observable facts.

...

*Note: Kepler also researched this theory, and Kepler never stated it as a fact. The Church never censored his work or had a bad relationship with him. This proves that the conflict with Galileo was merely for his insolence and dangerous behaviour.

 

🔔🔔🔔

 

The claim that the Bible says the Earth is flat is simply false....

No verse in Scripture describes a flat Earth. The Bible often uses poetic language and metaphors, like "the four corners of the Earth" (Isaiah 11:12), which refers to the extremities of the known world, not a literal shape (even we today still use such metaphorical language). In fact, Isaiah 40:22 mentions "the circle of the Earth," which aligns more with the idea of a spherical Earth.

...

Also, it’s worth noting that early Christian scholars, like St. Augustine and St. Thomas of Aquinas, understood that the Bible wasn't a science textbook, but a guide for salvation. The flat Earth myth was a later misinterpretation, not the view of the Church.

...

Note: the Church is infallible only regarding topics of faith and morals.

 

🔔🔔🔔

 

• Heretics need the capacity to process allegory. The Bible has the exclusive goal of teaching faith and morals, through literal and metaphorical ways.

There are many possible justified reasons for similarities in themes, motifs, and narrative structures between Genesis and other accounts regarding Creation:

 

1️⃣ - Scholars believe that the author of Genesis was influenced by the cultural and religious ideas prevalent during his time... The ancient Near East, including Mesopotamia and Canaan. So the author of Genesis (Moses) merely used known myths, but edited them for the exclusive goal of teaching the correct faith and morals, the fundamental aspects of God, Creation, and Humanity; such as an ex nihilo monotheistic creation account, with a close and true relationship between humanity and God, the Fall of Man, and the Coming of the Messiah.
...
Moses didn't borrow from myths out of ignorance or deception; by using cultural stories that people were already familiar with, he was able to speak to them in a language they understood while stripping away the falsehoods. He transformed these myths into a vehicle for the truth, pointing them to the one true God who created everything ex nihilo... This further highlights the brilliance of God's plan: God meets humanity where they are and leads them toward the truth.

 

2️⃣ - Another possible reason for the similarities is quite simple: many cultures have a shared memory of true historical events, and that’s why there are common themes in their accounts; so it's entirely logical that various ancient civilizations would have retained echoes of such significant events in their own mythologies, such as the Flood. Ofcourse, these echoes were distorted by polytheism and other false ideas, but their existence points towards a singular truth: a shared memory of true significant events that humans carried and remembered through tradition, and then improvised with. Genesis stands out as the revelation of the true account without corruption, cleansed from error and polytheistic influences, directly inspired by God to Moses. So, rather than pointing towards Genesis being a “plagiarism”, these other stories actually reinforce the veracity of the one shared Creation account and significant events in Humanity. Genesis preserves this in its purest form.

 

Hehe, that was fun!

 

🔔🔔🔔

 

• Now, time to wreck atheism! 😊

The absolutely stupid thing is to be non-Catholic. There was a moment in which Creation began, since it is an impossibility for there to be an infinite regress; there is no Creation without God; only God can create ex nihilo; the Primary Cause argument (only God is above Creation and only He can start Creation out of nothing), the Fine-Tuning argument (the values of the laws of the Universe prove that an Intelligent Transcendent Entity fine-tuned everything to permit life and events, but not only did He fine-tune, but He also created the very laws and system that He fine-tuned), the Objective Truth and Morality argument (we know that there are objective truths, and there can be no objective Truth, Good and Morality, without an Eternal Immutable Source which can only be the One God), the Consciousness argument (non-conciousness cannot cause conciousness, so our consciousness requires One Transcendent Source: God), the Contingency argument (everything requires something else for it's existence, therefore only God can sustain Creation), all prove that without God, nothing is possible; only God must and can be the One Eternal Intelligent Creator and Source of everything; God continuously sustains and upholds everything in existence... Without His constant act of being, nothing else would exist; everything needs God's continuous existence to remain in being - God is Ipsum Esse Subsistens; there is an absolute necessity for the existence of God.
...

“Square circle” argument:

There cannot be a square circle because each entity has a nature. The nature of each contradicts the other; a square circle is an impossibility, because it means that both contrary natures perfectly become one nature.
...
God is the Source of Objective Truth; so it is the nature of God that affirms the logical impossibility of such silly idea. God's nature defined the natures of a square and of a circle; God's nature declares contradictions as illogical. God is Immutable and Eternal; his nature never changes. God cannot contradict His nature, because He cannot contradict Himself (and so objective facts). Not being able to do objective absurdities does not in any way diminishish the omnipotence. On the contrary, it is God that even indirectly defines what is absurd or evil (the imperfection/absence of good).

...
Atheism is easy to refute; now, which religion teaches the correct doctrine? Other religions have no correct Theology, true miracles, nor divine revelation and guidance, only Catholicism has them; the Catholic Church civilized Humanity and advanced scientific progress extremely; the Church recognized and taught Humanity the Objective Morality, ceasing the degeneracy of many; there is more than sufficient proof for Catholicism: prophecies from the Old Testament fulfilled in the New Testament, thousands of eyewitnesses who lived and died with a miserable life for what they believed in, Tradition, and an unbroken chain of lineage. Not only do we have internal eyewitnesses and testimonies, but we also have the strongest type of eyewitnesses and testimonies; those of our enemies: the jews who rejected Jesus (Talmud), Josephus, Celsus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon, Bar-Serapion, Tacitus, Thallus, and others.

 

🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦

 

MINI-ARGUMENT - EASTERN «ORTHODOX»? HETERODOX! THE FILIOQUE

 

In the Great Schism of 1054, it was the minority of Eastern churches that schismed, rejecting the Pope. The majority of the Eastern churches STAYED IN COMMUNION with the Pope (so these are still in the Catholic Church, they are true Catholics/orthodox). The mere existence of these Eastern churches that STAYED with the Pope is itself further proof that they all submitted to the Pope.

...

Note: the Maronite Church is proof that Catholicism has the fullness of truth. The Maronites have remained loyal to the Catholic faith since its creation in the 4th century and have always recognized the Papacy. They have NEVER broken communion with the Pope and the Church of Rome.

 

Among the schismatics, they are not even united among themselves; there are 17+ autocephalous churches!

 

One main reason for the schism was the Filioque controversy; eastern schismatics claim that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son, only the Father. True orthodox (Catholics) teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both.

 

The Great Schism was in 1054, but before this, the entire Church (submitted to the Pope, as already shown, and) believed in the Filioque:
- Tertullian (A.D. 216), Origen (A.D. 229), Maximus the Confessor (A.D. 254), Gregory the Wonderworker (A.D. 265), Ephrem the Syrian (306), Hilary of Poitiers (A.D. 357), Didymus the Blind (A.D. 362), Epiphanius of Salamis (A.D. 374), Basil the Great (A.D. 375), Ambrose of Milan (A.D. 381), Gregory of Nyssa (A.D. 382), Pope Leo I (400), The Athanasian Creed (A.D. 400), Augustine of Hippo (A.D. 408, 416), Cyril of Alexandria (A.D. 424), Council of Toledo (A.D. 400), Fulgence of Ruspe (A.D. 524), John Damascene (A.D. 712, 728), Council of Nicaea II (A.D. 787).

 

The Father and the Son send the Holy Spirit. We see this in John 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7.
...
The Three Persons share the same One Essence; so if there were no relational opposition between the Son and the Holy Spirit, then there would be no distinction between them. It is precisely the act of production (begetting or proceeding) that defines their distinctions.

 

*So the "Eastern orthodox" are the ones that contradict orthodoxy. The Pope and Rome, as expected, are correct.
*Remember: each Papal ARGUMENT in this document alone refutes schism against the Pope. I repeat the facts from the other arguments: Jesus told us to submit to the Pope (Peter); Peter feeds us; rejecting to being fed by Peter is heresy. Jesus prays for Peter so that his faith may not fail, so that Peter saves and unites his brothers that have been corrupted. Furthermore, the entire Church in the first Millennium submitted to the Pope. Church Fathers and Ecumenical Councils, as already shown in this document, say so. The schismatics at the time of the Councils accepted them and recognized that the Pope is Supreme... And even now, the schismatics still claim to recognize the validity of the Councils. The schismatics in 1054 contradicted even themselves, rejecting the most fundamental doctrine of following the Pope.
...
It is not “two divisions” of the Catholic Church. The schismatics merely left the Catholic Church; the lie does not affect the truth; the truth remains the same: the Catholic Church stays as is, being led by Peter, the Chief Shepherd, Steward, and Point of Unity that feeds us.

 

🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦

 

QUICK FACTS - DESTROY ANY HERETIC, EASY SUPER TIPS!!!!!!

 

Quick rule to remember, always: heretics like to give red herrings (ignore your refutation, and talk about something else). Just don't let them do it; ignore their new topic if they don't face your argument. If they try to jump, just say "your opinion is fake and gay; you are running from my argument", and repeat your argument. Never let a heretic escape.

 

If you are Catholic, and you want to argue against a protestant or a schismatic, all you need to destroy prots and schismatics is this:

 

- Jesus started the Papacy upon Saint Peter, the Rock upon which the Church of Jesus is built, the Chief Shepherd (Matthew 16:18-19); “Peter” comes from “Petros” (greek), and it literally means “Rock”/“Kepha” (“Petros” in greek means “Rock”, “Kepha” in aramaic means “Rock”); Saint Peter carries the Keys of Jesus: Saint Peter is the Chief Steward of Jesus's Kingdom and Church (conjugate with Isaiah 22:22-23);
- Saint Peter is infallible (Luke 22:31-32);
- Saint Peter feeds us (John 21:15-17);
- The Bible tells us to follow the successors of the Apostles. All Apostles and their successors are Catholics (follow the Pope).
- The Catholic Church was alone for the entire first Millennium. Eastern schism appeared in 1054+, protestantism in 1500+. This instantly proves that all of the Apostles and their Successors are Catholics, and that the Holy Spirit guided and guides the Catholic Church.
- The Catholic Church alone validates the Bible, because it is fruit of the Church;
- The phrase “binding and loosening” was a legal term referring to the Sanhedrin’s capacity to establish halakah (rules of conduct) for the Hebrew people (Sifra, Emor, 9; Talmud: Makkot 23b). Christ acknowledged this authority as long as the Pharisees sat on the “Chair of Moses” (Matt. 23:1-4)  However, Christ uses this formula of binding and loosening to show that this authority to teach, govern, and discipline has been transferred over to the Chair of St. Peter and the apostles (Matt. 16:19; 18:19; Luke 22:29-32).

 

Bonus: The Bible tells us to submit to the Apostles: «The one who listens to you, listens to Me; the one who rejects you, rejects Me» (Luke 10:16), «(Peter,) Feed My sheep» (John 21:17), «whatever you bind and loosen on earth shall be bound and loosened in heaven...» (Matthew 16:19; Matthew 18:18), «I give to you (Peter) the Keys...» (Matthew 16:19), «Go and baptize all...» (Matthew 28:19), «I will be with you until the consummation of the World» (Matthew 28:20), «If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the Church» (Matthew 18:17), «And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers» (Acts 2:42).

...

Protestants have never read the Bible 😹😹😹😹😹😹😹🗣‼️🇻🇦

 

🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦

 

More arguments (small yet destructive) by me

 

1. The Cute Argument

Intro: I have never heard someone use this argument. I alone thought about it. This fact is so simple that it tends to be forgotten or ignored. This is mainly to destroy protestants and muslims.

- In the New Testament, there is the book of Romans (after reading it, clearly it was literally written as a letter to the Church of Rome). Instantly, this means that the Apostles had already reached Rome, and that the Roman Church is Apostolic. This also means that we must follow these Successors of the Apostles.
...
There was only Catholicism in Rome in the entire first Millennium, and beyond - all were Catholic (all followed the Pope) - the Roman Church has always been Catholic.
And the Bible says that all churches are One Church, «Kath Oles». So the Roman Church is biblical, and all must recognize and follow this church.
...
Shield: for prots that will say “it became corrupted!” or “this one is a fake, the real Roman Church is not this one!”- Jesus said that the Apostles would be guided by the Holy Spirit, that Saint Peter is infallible and the Point of Unity, and that the Church shall not be prevailed by the gates of hell. Furthermore, History proves Catholicism. Thus, it is an impossibility for the real Roman Church to ever be prevailed, so this is the same Roman Church.

And as an extra bonus, against prots and also against schismatics, I then quote a letter that the Roman Church sent to the Corinthian church in year 70: the letter of Pope Clement I to the Corinthian church. In this letter, the Pope and Roman Church affirm supreme authority over the Corinthian church, and the Corinthian church obeyed. This further proves that there is Unity among the churches (all are One Catholic Church), and that the Pope is above all in authority and the Point of Unity.

Heresy is over 😹 No matter what any protestant says, no matter his argument or red herring, always insist the Cute Argument: the Roman Church is biblical and apostolic, and when we look at what the Roman church (and all other churches) taught in the entire first Millennium, it was all Catholicism (with the Papacy).

I made this argument so I name it «the Cute Argument». It wrecks heresy so hard.

😭‼️

2. The Lusitanian Argument

Intro: this argument is very simple. I am going to prove that the Early Church is Catholic (following the Pope). I am going to use Portugal as an example, but this argument can be used for basically any place.

- In Portugal, the first Church we had was in the 4th century; Portugal has been Catholic since the 4th century, when Rome colonized us!!!!! For example, we to this day still have the Chapel of São Frutuoso, which opened in year 560 after Christ!
...
This one simple fact instantly proves that the cause of this church was also Catholic - Catholicity cannot come from non-Catholicity; following the Pope cannot come from non-following the Pope; the Papacy cannot come from non-Papacy; we Portuguese have been following the Pope since the 4th century - we know that Rome colonized Portugal and brought Christianity - so the Roman Church is responsible for Portugal's Catholicism (with the Papacy).

⚪️🔵‼️🗣‼️🇻🇦

3. The Argument by Existence

- All churches (the entire Church) in the entire first Millennium was Catholic, following the Pope. There were only Catholic churches and Catholic doctrine. This means that the Apostles were all Catholic, since they are the causes of the Catholic Church.

- No one was protestant (year 1500+). There was no protestant church, nor protestant doctrine (protestants=evangelicals, baptists, mormons, non-denominational and such).

- No one was a schismatic (year 1054+). There was no schismatic church, nor schismatic doctrine.

- No one was muslim (year 600+). Islam only appeared with Muhammad around year 622. There was no mosque, nor islamic doctrine.

Conclusion: the Catholic Church was alone, so this irrefutably means that Jesus built the Catholic Church upon Saint Peter; all Apostles were Catholic, taught Catholicism, and caused Catholic churches. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would guide the Apostles and the Church, and that the Church would never be prevailed.

In quick words: heretics didn't exist in the beginning, so their heresies are not apostolic.

🗣‼️🔥

4. The Argument by Special Title
There is One United Catholic Church. Before the eastern schismatics schismed, they belonged to this Catholic Unity. So, there were patriarchs, but the Bishop of Rome is the only one that had a special title even in the first Millennium, before the schism: Vicarius Christi (the Vicar of Christ).
...
The mere fact that we call him the Vicar of Christ at least since the 5th century is caused by him being above all in authority, with Universal Jurisdiction.

🗣‼️🇻🇦

5. The Argument Regarding the Schism and the Council of Florence

The schism of 1053 is itself proof of the Papacy. The Eastern churches didn't reject the Papacy because they didn't believe in it; they rejected it because of disagreements like the Filioque. They knew the Pope is the Chief, which is why breaking from him was a big deal. Simple as that: you don’t break from what doesn't exist. That is the punch, now here's the kick: the minority of the churches schismed, and the majority remained with the Papacy. If the Papacy was “fake” and “invented” only at that moment, no church would follow the Papacy; but the majority stayed, following the Papacy. They STAYED, they didn't “join” following the Papacy; they were already following the Papacy, and continued to. Furthermore, the Council of Florence (year 1439) was held because the schismatic bishops wanted to return to communion with the Pope (they acknowledged Papal Primacy); they declared that they would grant the pope all the privileges he had before the schism. Council of Florence, Laetentur Caeli: «We also define that the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff have primacy over the whole universe; that the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of Blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles, is the authentic vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church, the father and doctor of all Christians; that our Lord Jesus Christ transmitted to him, in the person of Blessed Peter, the full power to fear, to govern and govern the universal church.»

 

🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦

 

Saint Thomas of Aquinas - The Rock: Peter, his confession, or Christ?

PART I - Whether Saint Peter, his confession, or Christ is the rock upon which the Church is built?
PART II - Appreciation area.

 

• PART I - Whether Saint Peter, his confession, or Christ is the rock upon which the Church is built?

Saint Aquinas tends to interpret that the rock upon which the Church is built is Christ, even though he also says that Simon is named rock - an apparent silly contradiction, caused by excessive interpretation of layers.
...
Even the Church Fathers that interpret that the rock upon which the Church is built is Christ or the confession of Peter, they all still agreed that the Papacy is Supreme; nothing changes; the Pope continues to be the Steward (because he is still the Chief with the Keys, and has the power to bind and loosen, and hypothetically even “Peter's confession” or Christ being the rock would still justify the Papacy); the Church founded upon the rock would still be the Catholic Church.

Objection 1: «It seems that the rock was Christ. Thus, the name “Peter” signifies the Church, which was built upon that solid and immovable rock which is Christ.» (Saint Aquinas, Commentary 306 on John 1, Lecture 15).
...
On the contrary, as written by Saint Thomas of Aquinas, «“Peter” (Petrus) is derived from “rock” (petra)» (Commentary 306 on John 1, Lecture 15); and, «Peter is named rock on account of solidity; and Cephas, which is a Syrian, not Hebraic name» (Commentary on Matthew 10:1-15 [10-1; 2.]).
...
I answer that, Jesus did not say: “Your confession is rock”, nor “I am rock”, but rather: «Thou shalt be called Rock (Cephas)» (John 1:42); «You are Rock» (Matthew 16:18-19)
[Conjugate with ARGUMENT 1.1-1.3]
...
Reply to objection 1: The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) promulgated by Pope John Paul II teaches:
424. «On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.»
881. «The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church.»
552. «Christ, the “living stone,” thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church.»
...
As seen, Peter is alone the Rock; Peter's person and his faith are inseparable; his faith is a part of his person; this is how his faith is also the rock, as it is tied to himself. Thus, the Pope carries Peter's authority, faith, and confession.

 

• PART II - Appreciation area

Contra Errores Graecorum [Against the Errors of the Greeks] - Part II:

 

CHAPTER 31: That to believe the Holy Spirit is from the Son is necessary for salvation.

...
It frequently happens that when disputants disagree, the points on which they disagree are not necessary to salvation. Lest anyone think that believing the Holy Spirit to be from the Son is not necessary to the faith by which we are saved, it should be shown from texts of the Greek Doctors that such is necessary for faith and salvation.
For Athanasius says in his letter to Serapion: “In accord with the command of the Apostle (Tit. 3:10): After a first and second correction avoid a heretic, even those you might see flying through the air with Elijah or walking dryshod on the water like Peter and Moses; unless they profess just as we profess that the Holy Spirit is God naturally existing from God the Son, as the son also is naturally God begotten eternally and existing of God and Father, you are not to receive them.” And again: “Have no communion with those who blaspheme and deny that the Holy Spirit is God from the nature of God the Son.”
Likewise Cyril in his Thesaurus says: “It is necessary for our salvation to confess that the Holy Spirit exists of the essence of the Son, as existing of him by nature.” So, too, Epiphanius in his book on the Trinity: “You cut yourself off from the grace of God when you do not admit the Son to be from the Father or say that the Holy Spirit is not from the Father and the Son.”
It is, therefore, clear that in no way are they to be tolerated who deny the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. 

CHAPTER 32: That the Roman Pontiff is the first and greatest among all bishops.

...
The error of those who say that the Vicar of Christ, the Pontiff of the Roman Church, does not have a primacy over the universal Church is similar to the error of those who say that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son. For Christ himself, the Son of God, consecrates and marks her as his own with the Holy Spirit, as it were with his own character and seal, as the authorities already cited make abundantly clear. And in like manner the Vicar of Christ by his primacy and foresight as a faithful servant keeps the Church Universal subject to Christ. It must, then, be shown from texts of the aforesaid Greek Doctors that the Vicar of Christ holds the fullness of power over the whole Church of Christ.
Now, that the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ, is the first and greatest of all the bishops, is expressly stated in the canon of the Council which reads: “According to the Scriptures and definition of the canon we venerate the most holy bishop of old Rome as the first and greatest of all the bishops.”
This, moreover, accords well with Sacred Scripture, which both in the Gospels and in the Acts of the Apostles (cf. Matt. 16:18; John 21:17; Acts 1: 15-16, 2:14, 15:17) assigns first place among the Apostles to Peter. Hence, Chyrsostom commenting on the text of Matthew !8: 1: The discoples came to Jesus and asked, who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, says: “For they had created in their minds a human stumbling block, which they could no longer keep to themselves; nor did they control their hearts’s pride, because they saw that Peter was preferred to them and was given a more honorable place.”

CHAPTER 33: That the same Pontiff has universal jurisdiction over the entire Church of Christ.

...

It is also shown that the Vicar of Christ has universal jurisdiction over the entire Church of Christ. For it is recorded of the Council of Chalcedon how the whole synod acclaimed Pope Leo: “Long live Leo, the most holy, apostolic, and ecumenical, that is, universal patriarch.”
And Chrysostom commenting on Matthew says: “The power which is of the Father and of the Son himself the Son conferred worldwide on Peter and gave a mortal man authority over all things in heaven, giving him the keys in order that he might extend the Church throughout the world.” And in homily 85 on John: “He allocated James a determined territory, but he appointed Peter master and teacher of the whole world.” Again, commenting on the Acts of the Apostles: “Not like Moses over one people, but throughout the whole world Peter received from the Son power over all those who are His sons.”
This is also taught on the authority of Holy Scripture. For Christ entrusted hi sheep to the care of Peter without restriction, when he said in the last chapter of John (21:15): Feed my sheep; and in John 10:16: That there might be one fold and one shepherd.

CHAPTER 34: That the same possesses in the Church a fullness of power.

...
It is also established from the texts of the aforesaid Doctors that the Roman Pontiff possesses a fullness of power in the Church. For Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria, says in his Thesaurus: “As Christ coming forth from Israel as leader and sceptre of the Church of the Gentiles was granted by the Father the fullest power over every principality and power and whatever is that all might bend the knee to him, so he entrusted most fully the fullest power to Peter and his successors.” And again: “To no one else but Peter and to him alone Christ gave what is his fully.” And further on: “The feet of Christ are his humanity, that is, the man himself, to whom the whole Trinity gave the fullest power, whom one of the Three assumed in the unity of his person and lifted up on high to the Father above every principality and power, so that all the angels of God might adore him (Heb. 1:6); which whole and entire he has left in sacrament and power to Peter and to his Church.”
And Chrysostom says to the Bulgarian delegation speaking in the person of Christ: “Three times I ask you whether you love me, because you denied me three times out of fear and trepidation. Now restored, however, lest the brethren believe you to have lost the grace and authority of the keys, I now confirm in you that which is fully mine, because you love me in their presence.”
This is also taught on the authority of Scripture. For in Matthew 16: 19 the Lord said to Peter without restriction: Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound in heaven.

CHAPTER 35: That he enjoys the same power conferred on Peter by Christ.
...
It is also shown that Peter is the Vicar of Christ and the Roman Pontiff is Peter’s successor enjoying the same power conferred on Peter by Christ. For the canon of the Council of Chalcedon says: “If any bishop is sentenced as guilty of infamy, he is free to appeal the sentence to the blessed bishop of old Rome, whom we have as Peter the rock of refuge, and to him alone, in the place of God, with unlimited power, is granted the authority to hear the appeal of a bishop accused of infamy in virtue of the keys given him by the Lord.” And further on: “And whatever has been decreed by him is to be held as from the vicar of the apostolic throne.”
Likewise, Cyril, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, says, speaking in the person of Christ” “You for a while, but I without end will be fully and perfectly in sacrament and authority with all those whom I shall put in your place, just as I am with you.” And Cyril of Alexandria in his Thesaurus says that the Apostles “in the Gospels and Epistles have affirmed in all their teaching that Peter and his Church are in the place of the Lord, granting him participation in every chapter and assembly, in every election and proclamation of doctrine.” And further on: “To him, that is, to Peter, all by divine ordinance bow the head and the rulers of the world obey him as the Lord himself.” And Chrysostom, speaking in the person of Christ, says: “Feed my sheep (John 21:17), that is, in my place be in charge of your brethren.”

CHAPTER 36: That to him belongs the right of deciding what pertains to faith.
...
It is also demonstrated that to the aforesaid Pontiff belongs the right of deciding what pertains to faith. For Cyril in his Thesaurus says: “Let us remain as members in our head on the apostolic throne of the Roman Pontiffs, from whom it is our duty to seek what we must believe and what we must hold.” And Maximus in the letter addressed to the Orientals says: “All the ends of the earth which have sincerely received the Lord and Catholics everywhere professing the true faith look to the Church of the Romans as to the sun, and receive from it the light of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith.” Rightly so, for Peter is recorded as the first to have, while the Lord was enlightening him, confessed the faith perfectly when he said to him (Matt. 16:16): You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. And hence the Lord also said to him (Lk. 22:32): I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail.”

CHAPTER 37: That he is the superior of the other patriarchs.
...
It is also clear that he is the superior of the other patriarchs from this statement of Cyril: “It is his”, namely, of the Roman Pontiffs of the apostolic throne, “exclusive right to reprove, correct, enact, resolve, dispose and bind in the name of Him who established it.” And Chrysostom commenting on the Acts of the Apostles says that “Peter is the most holy summit of the blessed apostolic choir, the good shepherd.”
And this also is manifest on the authority of the Lord, in Luke 22:32 saying: “You, once converted, confirm your brethren.”

CHAPTER 38: That to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation.
...
It is also shown that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. For Cyril says in his Thesaurus: “Therefore, brethren, if ee imitate Christ so as to hear his voice remaining in the Church of Peter and so as not be puffed up by the wind of pride, lest perhaps because of our quarrelling the wily serpent drive us from paradise as once he did Eve.” And Maximus in the letter addressed to the Orientals says: “The Church united and established upon the rock of Peter’s confession we call according to the decree of the Savior the universal Church, wherein we must remain for the salvation of our souls and wherein loyal to his faith and confession we must obey him.”

 

🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦

 

Adadzie's Compilation of proofs for Petrine Primacy and the Papacy in the Bible

 

Godwin D. Adadzie - Catholic Apologetics Guide 101 - Scriptural Reference for Catholic Apologetics, p. 35-39:

50 New Testament proofs for Petrine Primacy and the Papacy

(Dave Armstrong) The evidence of Holy Scripture (RSV) follows: 

1. Matthew 16:18: "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church; and the powers of death shall not prevail against it". 

The rock (Greek, petra) referred to here is St. Peter himself, not his faith or Jesus Christ. 

Christ appears here not as the foundation, but as the architect who "builds". 

The Church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors - living men (see, e.g., 1 Peter 2:5). Today, the overwhelming consensus of the great majority of all biblical scholars and commentators is in favor of the traditional Catholic understanding. Here St. Peter is spoken of as the foundation-stone of the Church, making him head and superior of the family of God (i.e., the seed of the doctrine of the papacy). Moreover, Rock embodies a metaphor applied to him by Christ in a sense analogous to the suffering and despised Messiah (1 Peter 2:4-8; cf. Matthew 21:42). Without a solid foundation a house falls. 

St. Peter is the foundation, but not founder of the Church, administrator, but not Lord of the Church. The Good Shepherd (John 10:11) gives us other shepherds as well (Ephesians 4:11). 

2. Matthew 16:19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven..."  

The "power of the keys" has to do with ecclesiastical discipline and administrative authority with regard to the requirements of the faith, as in Isaiah 22:22 (cf. Isaiah 9:6; Job 12:14; Revelation 3:7). From this power flows the use of censures, excommunication, absolution, baptismal discipline, the imposition of penances, and legislative powers. In the Old Testament a steward, or prime minister is a man who is "over a house" (Genesis 41:40; 43:19; 44:4; 1 Kings 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Kings 10:5; 15:5; 18:18; Isaiah 22:15,20-21).

3. Matthew 16:19: "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven".  

"Binding" and "loosing" were technical rabbinical terms, which meant to "forbid" and "permit" with reference to the interpretation of the law, and secondarily to "condemn" or "place under the ban" or "acquit". Thus, St. Peter and the popes are given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life, by virtue of revelation and the Spirit's leading (John 16:13), and to demand obedience from the Church. 

"Binding and loosing" represent  
the legislative and judicial powers of the papacy and the bishops (Matthew 18:17-18; John 20:23). St. Peter, however, is the only apostle who receives these powers by name and in the singular, making him preeminent.  

4. Peter's name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Matthew 10:2; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him the "first" (10:2). Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.  

5. Peter is almost without exception named first whenever he appears with anyone else. In one (only?) example to the contrary, Galatians 2:9, where he ("Cephas") is listed after James and before John, he is clearly preeminent in the entire context (e.g., 1:18-19; 2:7-8).  

6. Peter alone among the apostles receives a new name, Rock, solemnly conferred (John 1:42; Matthew 16:18).  

7. Likewise, Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after Himself (John 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2).  

8. Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his "faith may not fail" (Luke 22:32).  

9. Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to "strengthen your brethren" (Luke 22:32).  

10. Peter first confesses Christ's divinity (Matthew 16:16).  

11. Peter alone is told that he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Matthew 16:17).

12. Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.

13. Peter is regarded by the common people in the same way (Acts 2:37-41; 5:15).  

14. Jesus Christ uniquely associates Himself and Peter in the miracle of the tribute-money (Matthew 17:24-27).

15. Christ teaches from Peter's boat, and the miraculous catch of fish follows (Luke 5:1- 11): perhaps a metaphor for the pope as a "fisher of men" (cf. Matthew 4:19).  

16. Peter was the first apostle to set out for, and enter the empty tomb (Luke 24:12; John 20:6).  

17. Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mark 16:7).

18. Peter leads the apostles in fishing (John 21:2-3, 11). The "bark" (boat) of Peter has been regarded by Catholics as a figure of the Church, with Peter at the helm.  

19. Peter alone casts himself into the sea to come to Jesus (John 21:7).  

20. Peter's words are the first recorded and most important in the upper room before Pentecost (Acts 1:15-22).  

21. Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22).  

22. Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to "preach the gospel" in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36).  

23. Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12).  

24. Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11)!  

25. Peter's shadow works miracles (Acts 5:15).  

26. Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40).  

27. Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6).  

28. Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48).  

29. Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17).  

30. Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age (an angel delivers him from prison - Acts 12:1-17).  

31. The whole Church (strongly implied) offers "earnest prayer" for Peter when he is imprisoned (Acts 12:5).

32. Peter presides over and opens the first Council of Christianity, and lays down principles afterwards accepted by it (Acts 15:7-11).  

33. Paul distinguishes the Lord's post-Resurrection appearances to Peter from those to other apostles (1 Corinthians 15:4-8). The two disciples on the road to Emmaus make the same distinction (Luke 24:34), in this instance mentioning only Peter ("Simon"), even though they themselves had just seen the risen Jesus within the previous hour (Luke 24:33).  

34. Peter is often spoken of as distinct among apostles (Mark 1:36; Luke 9:28,32; Acts 2:37; 5:29; 1 Corinthians 9:5).  

35. Peter is often spokesman for the other apostles, especially at climactic moments (Mark 8:29; Matthew 18:21; Luke 9:5; 12:41; John 6:67 ff.).  

36. Peter's name is always the first listed of the "inner circle" of the disciples (Peter, James and John - Matthew 17:1; 26:37, 40; Mark 5:37; 14:37).  

37. Peter is often the central figure relating to Jesus in dramatic gospel scenes such as walking on the water (Matthew 14:28-32; Luke 5:1 ff., Mark 10:28; Matthew 17:24 ff.).  

38. Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24).  

39. Peter's name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon, and 6 as Cephas). John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50% of the time we find John in the Bible! Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60% of the time any disciple is referred to!

40. Peter's proclamation at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41) contains a fully authoritative  interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the "House of Israel" (2:36) - an example of "binding and loosing".

41. Peter was the first "charismatic", having judged authoritatively the first instance of the gift of tongues as genuine (Acts 2:14-21).  

42. Peter is the first to preach Christian repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38).  

43. Peter (presumably) takes the lead in the first recorded mass baptism (Acts 2:41).  

44. Peter commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).  

45. Peter was the first traveling missionary, and first exercised what would now be called "visitation of the churches" (Acts 9:32-38, 43). Paul preached at Damascus immediately after his conversion (Acts 9:20), but hadn't traveled there for that purpose (God changed his plans!). His missionary journeys begin in Acts 13:2.  

46. Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter for fifteen days in the beginning of his ministry (Galatians 1:18), and was commissioned by Peter, James and John (Galatians 2:9) to preach to the Gentiles.  

47. Peter acts, by strong implication, as the chief bishop/shepherd of the Church (1 Peter 5:1), since he exhorts all the other bishops, or "elders".

48. Peter interprets prophecy (2 Peter 1:16-21).  

49. Peter corrects those who misuse Paul's writings (2 Peter 3:15-16). 

50. Peter wrote his first epistle from Rome, according to most scholars, as its bishop, and as the universal bishop (or, pope) of the early Church. "Babylon" (1 Peter 5:13) is regarded as code for Rome.

 

🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦

 

ARGUMENT - THE INTERCESSION OF THE SAINTS

 

The Bible says that we can and should ask for intercessions:
- In Matthew 5:44 and James 5:16, believers are encouraged to pray for one another, indicating the practice of intercessory prayer. Paul strongly encourages Christians to intercede for each other in his letter to Timothy (1 Tim 2:1-4). Paul also directly asks others to pray for him (Rom. 15:30–32, Eph. 6:18–20, Col. 4:3, 1 Thess. 5:25, 2 Thess. 3:1), and he assured them that he was praying for them as well (2 Thess. 1:11).

 

If believers on earth can pray for each other, it is plausible that saints in heaven could also intercede through prayer on behalf of the living. Throughout the Bible, there are instances of angels acting as messengers and intercessors between God and humans. For instance, in the Old Testament, the angel Raphael is portrayed as an intercessor for Tobit and Sarah in Tobit 12:12. Hebrews 12:1 refers to the “great cloud of witnesses,” which implies the presence and influence of departed believers as witnesses to the living, encouraging and supporting them in their faith journey. Luke 15:7 reminds us of the joy in heaven over even one repentant sinner. The saints in heaven therefore are aware of our hearts, rooting for our genuine repentance, and offering prayers on our behalf. Revelation 5:8 and Revelation 8:3-4 even depicts heavenly beings offering the prayers of the living to God in the form of incense.

 

Christ remains the one mediator between God and humanity. The saints’ intercession does not replace or undermine Christ’s role but rather complements it. Christ’s unique mediation is the foundation for all prayers, including those directed to the saints. We, as Christians, are called to pray for one another, evangelize, and spread the Good news, which are all acts of mediation. It is through participation in the Body of Christ that Christians share in the role of Christ’s mediation THROUGH Christ’s unique mediation.

Scripture indicates that those have died in Christ are not “dead” but are spiritually alive in Christ. Christ makes it clear in Mark 12:27 that God is the God of the living, not the dead and Ephesians 2:5 reaffirms that we are alive in Christ. The concept that the saints in heaven can indeed interact with the living is witnessed in Matthew 17:3 where Moses and Elijah appear and talk with Jesus.

 

James 5:16 states that the “prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective,” highlighting the efficacy of the prayers of righteous individuals. Saints, who are exceptionally righteous, have a greater ability to intercede effectively before God. They are thus powerful intercessors before God due to their close relationship with Him. As a result, believers can ask for the intercession of those in heaven, just as they might ask for prayers from fellow Christians on earth.

• Biblical Foundations for Intercession Beyond the Grave:

2 Maccabees 15:12-16: This passage shows the prophet Jeremiah, who had long been dead, appearing to Judas Maccabeus in a vision and interceding for the people of Israel. This shows that the saints who have died can still intercede for the living. (*If a protestant rejects the validity of the book of Maccabees, read ARGUMENT 6!)

• Jesus's Interaction with the Departed Saints:

Matthew 17:1-3, Mark 9:2-4, Luke 9:28-31: All three Synoptic Gospels recount the Transfiguration where Jesus converses with Moses and Elijah. These figures, representing the Law and the Prophets, are clearly seen interacting with Jesus, showing that the saints who have passed can still engage in divine matters.

• Prayers of the Martyrs:

Revelation 6:9-11: This passage describes the souls of the martyrs crying out from beneath the altar in heaven, asking God to avenge their blood. It indicates that the deceased saints are conscious, aware of earthly events, and can petition God, confirming their intercessory role.

• The Communion of Saints:

1 Corinthians 12:12-27: St. Paul teaches that the Church is one body in Christ, and all members—living and dead—are connected. So all believers, including those who have passed on, are still united in Christ.
...
Romans 8:38-39: St. Paul affirms that nothing, not even death, can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus. So the saints, even after death, remain in communion with God and the living Church.

 

Hebrews 12:1 - “Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us.”

 

• ➡️ The Bible tells us to learn from and submit to the Apostolic Fathers. All of the Early Church taught the Intercession of the Saints:

Clement of Alexandria: “In this way is he [the true Christian] always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of the saints standing with him [in prayer]” (Miscellanies 7:12 [A.D. 208]).

 

Origen: “But not the high priest [Christ] alone prays for those who pray sincerely, but also the angels . . . as also the souls of the saints who have already fallen asleep” (Prayer 11 [A.D. 233]).

 

🇻🇦

• INTERCESSION ARGUMENT VERSION 2 (more of my style)

Protestants say silly things such as: “Jesus is the only mediator (1 Timothy 2:5), so we can't pray to anyone else or ask for intercessions.”
...
The Bible says that we should ask others for intercession (same book, same chapter):
1 Timothy 2:1 - «I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men» 😹 So when the Bible says that Jesus is the one mediator between God and man, it still means that we should ask for intercessions. The Bible literally tells us to ask for intercessions and pray for one another - this doesn't substitute Christ's mediation; Christ's supreme mediation “unlocked” the possibility for us to go to Heaven; all our intercessions are valid because of Him.
...
Now, protestants will say: “Ah, but we can only do that to those alive! The dead can't hear us! Even if they could, they wouldn't hear and intercede for all of us at the same time!”
...
Luke 20:38 - «For he is not the God of the dead, but of the living: for all live to him.» 😹
Apocalypse 5:8 - «And when he had opened the book, the four living creatures and the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.» 😹 The Saints in heaven pray for us, and they deliver their prayers to God (all of this is intercession)! So they are very well aware of us.
Luke 15:7 - «I say to you, that even so there shall be joy in heaven upon one sinner that doth penance, more than upon ninety-nine just who need not penance.»
...
Regarding the Saints being able to hear and intercede for all of us simultaneously:
2 Peter 1:4 - «By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature: flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world.» 😹 The Saints are glorified, and participate in God's divine nature; they are not limited by earthly limitations. This does not make the Saints “all-knowing/omniscient”, because they aren't independent; God shares and allows them to have such capacities.

 

🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦

 

ARGUMENT - THE HOLY MARY MOTHER OF GOD. SINLESS (IMMACULATE CONCEPTION), ETERNAL VIRGIN, AND ASSUMED INTO HEAVEN

 

Mary is full of grace (Luke 1:28). Being full of grace means that she has no sin; this proves the Immaculate Conception. The Bible says that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), so if she has no sin, then it means that she was assumed into heaven.

...

“Full of Grace” translates kecharitōmĕnē, the perfect passive participle of charitŏō. It denotes one who has been and still is the object of divine benevolence, one who has been favored and continues to be favored by God, one who has been granted supernatural grace and remains in this state. Verbs ending in ŏō, such as haimatŏō (turn into blood), thaumatŏō (fill with wonder), spodŏōmai (burn to ashes) frequently express the full intensity of the action. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action.

...
Hypothetically, if Mary's temporal death even occurred, it would not have been a consequence of personal sin (because she has no sin), it would merely be a participation in Christ's redemptive suffering; since she is full of grace (sinless=preserved from corruption=her body cannot be victim of corruption), her unique grace necessitates her Assumption into Heaven in whatever scenario.

 

Archangel Gabriel visited Holy Mary, and she said:
Luke 1:34 - «I know not a man» (οὐκ ἔγνων ἄνδρα)... «ἔγνων» (egnōn) is in the perfect tense, indicating a state that began in the past and continues into the present, and that she does not wish to know a man. This implies that Mary had taken a vow of perpetual virginity.
...
Also, she said that even though she was married to Saint Joseph; this further shows that she gave a vow of eternal celibacy. Because the archangel said that she would be the Mother of the Messiah, and naturally, since she was married, she would have presupposed that the Messiah would be born through her and Joseph, but no! Mary instead says «I know not a man», even though she is married, indicating that she had taken a vow of perpetual virginity.
...
Also, Jesus made Saint John take care of Mary (John 19:26-27); this shows that Mary had no other sons since she is a virgin (because the rule at the time was that the children had to take care of the mother, and not someone else if she had children; it was the jewish custom; going against this rule was punishable by death).

 

Church Fathers:

 

Hilary of Poitiers: “If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate” (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

 

Origen: “The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity” (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

 

🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦

 

NOTE - THERE IS NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

 

Vatican II, Lumen Gentium (binding) - 14: «The Church is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.»
«They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion.»

 

Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) 845+846 (authoritative):
...
«According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, She (the Son's Catholic Church) is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.»
...
«All salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church.»
...
«Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.»

 

The Bible:

The Catholic Church is the Church of Christ founded upon Peter, being led by the Pope that Christ put in place as the Chief Shepherd to guide us (Matthew 16:18-19); rejecting the Catholic Church and the Pope is rejecting Christ;
...
The Catholic Church is the Body of Christ (Colossians 1:18); no man cometh to the Father, but by the Son (John 14:6), so you must not reject the Son's Body (the Catholic Church);
...
Only those that do the will of the Father who is in Heaven shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 7:21-23)... The will of the Father includes accepting the fullness of truth revealed by Christ, which is preserved and taught by the Catholic Church that Christ founded; the Catholic Church is the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15).

 

The disciple and Successor of Saint John, Saint Ignatius of Antioch, taught:

“Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism [i.e., is a schismatic], he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine [i.e., is a heretic], he has no part in the passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons” (Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3–4:1 [A.D. 110]).

 

The successor of Saint John, Saint Irenaeus of Lyon, taught:

“In the Church God has placed apostles, prophets, teachers, and every other working of the Spirit, of whom none of those are sharers who do not conform to the Church, but who defraud themselves of life by an evil mind and even worse way of acting. Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace” (Against Heresies, 3:24:1 [A.D. 189]).

 

Origen:

“If someone from this people wants to be saved, let him come into this house so that he may be able to attain his salvation. . . . Let no one, then, be persuaded otherwise, nor let anyone deceive himself: Outside of this house, that is, outside of the Church, no one is saved; for, if anyone should go out of it, he is guilty of his own death” (Homilies on Joshua 3:5 [A.D. 250]).

 

Saint Augustine:

“Whoever is separated from this Catholic Church, by this single sin of being separated from the unity of Christ, no matter how estimable a life he may imagine he is living, shall not have life, but the wrath of God rests upon him” (Letters, 141:5).

 

Pope Pius IX - Syllabus of Errors (authoritative/binding)
Pope Pius IX condemned these ideas:
...
15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.
16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation,
and arrive at eternal salvation.
17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.
18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in
which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.
80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself and come to terms with progress,
liberalism and modern civilization.

 

Ecumenical Council of Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus (dogmatic, infallible):
1 - «If anyone therefore affirms that the blessed Peter the Apostle was not constituted by Christ the Lord, Prince of all the Apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant, or that he did not receive from Our Lord Jesus Christ himself a true primacy of jurisdiction, but only of honor: let him be anathema.»
2 - «If anyone therefore affirms that it is not by disposition of Christ the Lord himself, that is, by divine right, that blessed Peter has forever successors in the Primacy over the Universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in the same Primacy: let him be anathema.»
3 - «The Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold the Primacy over all the earth, and that the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, the true Vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church, the father and teacher of all Christians; to him, in the person of blessed Peter, was entrusted, by our Lord Jesus Christ, the full power to guide, govern and govern the universal Church.
We therefore proclaim and declare that the Roman Church, by disposition of the Lord, holds the primacy of ordinary power over all others, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, true episcopal power, is immediate: all, pastors and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, are bound, towards him, by the obligation of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in things that belong to faith and customs, but also in those relating to the discipline and government of the Church, throughout world. In this way, having safeguarded the unity of communion and profession of the same faith with the Roman Pontiff, the Church of Christ will be one flock under one supreme shepherd. This is the doctrine of Catholic truth, from which no one can depart without loss of faith and danger of salvation.
It is evident that the judgment of the Apostolic See, which holds the highest authority, cannot be called into question by anyone nor subjected to examination by anyone [Ep. Nicolai I ad Michaelem Imperatorem]. Those who affirm that it is possible to appeal to the Ecumenical Council, as if it were invested with a superior power, against the sentences of the Roman Pontiffs therefore deviate from the straight path of truth.
Therefore, if anyone claims that the Roman Pontiff simply has an inspection or directive task, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only with regard to faith and customs, but also with regard to discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the earth; or that he is invested only with the principal role and not with all the fullness of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and directed both over all and individual Churches, and over each and every believer and pastor: let him be anathema.»
4 - «Therefore, We, remaining faithful to the tradition received from the beginnings of the Christian faith, for the glory of God our Savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion, and for the salvation of Christian peoples, with the approval of the sacred Council, proclaim and define as a dogma revealed by God that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his supreme office as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in the person of Blessed Peter, enjoys that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals: therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable by themselves, and not by the consent of the Church. If anyone, therefore, shall presume to oppose this Our definition, God forbid!: let him be anathema.»

 

Unam Sanctam (Ex Cathedra, infallible)

One God, One Faith, One Spiritual Authority

Bull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302.

...

«Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.»

«It looks like it's the end of the road, Buu... It's a darn shame.»

 

VICTORY SPEECH:

 

- Once heretics are exposed to the Catholic truth (or have the possibility to know it), especially when it has been thoroughly explained and proven beyond refutation, their rejection of it becomes an act of willful disobedience and vincible ignorance; this kind of obstinate behavior is not just ignorance anymore; it is a grave refusal to accept the truth that Christ Himself declared and entrusted to His Church. From that point onward, they are accountable before God for their rejection of His established authority, and they cannot hide behind excuses. Persisting in such rebellion places their souls in extreme danger - if they refuse to repent and accept the truth, they are effectively choosing damnation over salvation.

Heretics want to use insignificant excuses as if they can justify rejecting what Jesus said. Whenever a degenerate uses another topic to run away from the Pope and the Catholic Church, just use this formula:
- Jesus said to follow the Pope and the Catholic Church that he founded on Peter.
- You reject and contradict the Pope and the Catholic Church; you reject and contradict Jesus.

The power to bind and loose remains with the Apostolic Successors until the end of time; you must continually be following their current rules (binding/loosening).

Rejecting what Christ Himself declared is not Christianity (they are not true full genuine Christians; they are false Christians) - it is a pathetic rejection of Christ, Christ's declarations and will, and the truth that He entrusted to His ONE, HOLY, APOSTOLIC, CATHOLIC CHURCH, LED BY HIS CHIEF SHEPHERD (THE POPE, BISHOP OF ROME, SUCCESSOR OF SAINT PETER)! ROMA LOCUTA, CAUSA FINITA! AVE CHRISTUS REX!

 

Exorcizo te, omnis spiritus immunde, in nomine Dei Patris omnipotentis, et in nomine Jesu Christi Filii ejus, Domini et Judicis nostri, et in virtute Spiritus Sancti, ut descedas ab hoc plasmate Dei, quod Dominus noster ad templum sanctum suum vocare dignatus est, ut fiat templum Dei vivi, et Spiritus Sanctus habitet in eo. Per eumdem Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.

 

This PDF is 100% free; quote from it and share it with everyone!

 

Recommended links:
http://4marksofthechurch.com
https://www.churchfathers.org

https://www.ecatholic2000.com/
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers

*Check for updates to this document here:

https://justpaste.it/Lusitano

 

Best crusaders:

- Voice of Reason [Alex] (Youtube, TikTok, +++)
- Erick Ybarra (book: The Papacy, YouTube, +++)

- Brant Pitre (BrantPitre.com, Jewish Roots of the Papacy, YouTube, +++)
- Stephen Ray (books: Upon This Rock+Crossing the Tiber, CatholicConvert.com, +++)
- Suan Sonna [Intellectual Catholicism] (YouTube, +++)

- Catholic Truth [Bryan Mercier] (Youtube, CatholicTruth.org, +++)

 

Note: there is a slight appreciation of Dragon Ball throughout this document.

 

All must bend their knees to Rome!

Ave Maria! Ave Christus Rex!

 

Written and compiled by:

TikTok: @INQUISIDORLUSITANO

Instagram: @MOZ_CATH

«Behold the power of Ultra Instinct!»