Catholicism is Not Real Christianity

I regard the above statements to be accusations and/or fallacies which I will seek to qualify as such. But as the instigator of this debate and in argument for the pro position, the burden of proof lies with my opponent. [1] That being said, I ask for my opponent to define the following terms: "prays" (or prayer,) "Christianity," "worship," "Biblical" (or the Bible) "The Catholic Church," and "pagan. " I cannot argue statements 3 and 5 because I need specific examples to refute. For more elaborate arguments on statements 1 and 2, I will need the above terms defined. However, I will provide brief refutations. 1. It is not in the teachings of the Catholic Church for Catholics to pray ‘to' saints, to say such a linguistic error. In Catholic teaching, we simply ask the saints to pray for and with us, much like we ask our brethren on Earth to pray for and with us. We believe that we are all interconnected, acting as a single body within Christ (Romans 12:5) and that not even death can separate us from Christ and, by extension, the body of individuals within him (Rom 8:35-39). The Catholic Church breaks down the body of Christ into three broad categories. The Church Victorious, those that have achieved salvation and are in heaven, the Church Suffering, those souls in purgatory, and the Church Militant, that is, the whole contingency of people that are on Earth striving for salvation. We "Militant" Catholics ask those individuals in heaven to pray for us, since they are closer to God, to avoid the temptation of sin. This idea is a network, a way we have the whole of the human race helping each other gain salvation. Catholics do not worship idols. In Exodus 20:4-5 God forbids the making of images only for the purpose of worshiping them. He does not completely forbid the creating of images completely. The Old Testament is replete with statues and icons made by Jews that are loyal to God. The only use icons have in the Catholic Church is to remind us of the people and places they represent. They are just like pictures. We look at the icons to call to mind the holy deeds accomplished by God as well as the people that they affected just like we look at family pictures to remind us of past events in our familial history. 2. The largest argumentative point for this topic is the issue of Peter being the first pope. [2] We Catholics believe that Jesus made Peter the "rock" of his Church in Matthew 16:13-19, that is, he makes him the base-stone of a new organization. This very controversial issue takes its roots linguistically and is something that can not be solved through Koine Greek (the language of the New Testament), but the very language that Jesus spoke, Aramaic. We will however, look at the Greek first. In Matthew 16:13-19, Jesus says, "And I tell you that you are Peter [πετρος], and on this rock [πετρα] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. " It's curious that translators would use two different words, and this leads many to believe that Jesus is not calling Peter the rock of the church because of two different words being used. The truth of the matter is that Greek is very different from the Semitic languages, of which Aramaic is a member. [3] The reason that two different words were used was based on gender. One can not give a man a feminine name, and πετρα, while still meaning rock, is a feminine noun and can not be used for Simon, a man. Therefore, early Greek translators manipulated the word πετρα to make a masculine name, πετρος. The only problem is that there is a preexisting meaning for the masculine form, which is small stone. The feminine form takes the meaning of a large boulder, and from this gender distinction stems the debate in Peter being the rock of the church. However, Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek. Therefore, he would have used the word ‘כיפא' or Cephas, a word still preserved in the New Testament in places such as 1 Corinthians 1:12. Cephas has no gender issues and can therefore comfortably fulfill the meaning that Jesus intended. A new rendering of the passage shows the following: "And I tell you that you are Peter [כיפא/Cephas], and on this rock [כיפא/Cephas] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. " There is also a nice amount of wordplay on the name Cephas. Directly after his renaming, Peter receives the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, a symbolic representation of his new mission as the steward of the earthly Church constructed by God himself. As an interesting side note, the French Bible makes no such differentiation between Peter [Pierre] and the stone [Pierre] the sentence would thus be rendered: And I tell you that you are Peter [Pierre], and on this rock [pierre] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. " [4] From the above information, Catholics assert that having a pope, as well as priests and bishops is biblical. Our need for the hierarchy is also based off of our need for the Sacraments. In conclusion, I believe this debate boils down to simply more miscommunication and misconceptions between Christians. To quote Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians, "I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. " (1 Corinthians 1:10) Sources: All biblical sources from . http://www.biblegateway.com... in the New International Version unless otherwise cited. [1] . http://www.trans-lex.org... [2] . http://www.historicjesus.com... [3] . http://bit.ly... [4] . http://www.biblegateway.com...