Initial response to INC minister Jose Ventilacion's ATTACK against the Catholic Church by Winnie Ibe

Jose said:

IS IT TRUE THAT THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH WAS ESTABLISHED BY CHRIST?

An empty claim was made by the Roman Catholic Church when they advertised lately on CNN, in conjunction with the Pope’s visit here in the United States, that it was Jesus Christ himself who established their church. Devoid of biblical evidences to prove this contention, the Catholic Church had to use biblical citations which when examined thoroughly, are going beyond what is written, reading things that are not there in the text. Tradition, instead of the Bible, is their source to highlight their claim.An example of such claim is the concept that Peter was made Pope by Jesus Christ when he (Peter) was told that “upon this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18). After even reading that verse a thousand times, still you could not find anything in this verse that would tell you Peter is being made a Pope.In another instance, Jesus told Peter three times to feed his sheep (John 21:15-17). Catholic apologists would go beyond what is written by claiming that Jesus Christ is directly installing Apostle Peter as the Pope! Again, you may read the verses a million times but nothing there in these verses that would make us say that Peter was the first Pope!

My RESPONSE:

Jose Ventilacion first argument is DENIAL. The title of St. Peter being the POPE or FATHER is biblical. He is the TYPE of Eliakim who was the STEWARD of King David. Jesus Christ is the King and the type of Christ.

Jesus is KING:

Luke 1:32-33 KJVS
[32] He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: [33] And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

Here is the CLEAR TYPOLOGY:
Let us read:

Isaiah 22:21-22 KJVS
[21] And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will COMMIT thy GOVERNMENT into HIS HAND: and he shall be A FATHER to the INHABITANTS of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. [22] And THE KEY of the HOUSE of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall OPEN, and NONE SHALL SHUT ; and he shall shut, and NONE SHALL OPEN."

Here is Jesus conferring the same principle of giving AUTHORITY to St. Peter.

Jesus said:
Matthew 16:17-19 KJVS
[17] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar–jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. [18] And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build MY CHURCH; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give unto thee the KEYS of the KINGDOM of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt BIND on earth shall be BOUND in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt LOOSE on earth shall be LOOSES in heaven."

Jesus made Simon the steward of God's kingdom/church. He received blessings, NAMED PETER/ROCK and RECEIVED KEYS. Jesus knows very well the scripture (Isaiah 22:21-22) and the apostles understood it very well. In Isaiah 22:21 it tells us that ELIAKIM was entrusted to govern David's kingdom. The same manner Jesus COMMITTED HIS entire flock to TEND/ feed and to be look after by St. Peter.

Jesus said these to St. Peter before he ascended to heaven.

Let us read:

John 21:16-17 KJVS
[16] He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. [17] He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep."

The difference between Eliakim to St. Peter of course is the New Testament Kingdom is more glorious as Christ is the King of kings. His Kingdom is universal or CATHOLIC. St. Peter then is NOT ONLY "father" or Pope of the inhabitants of Judah and JERUSALEM but the "father" of all inhabitants of Christ's Church.

JOSE VENTILACION SAID:

There is no question when it comes to the Church built by Christ since the Bible tells us that Christ really established a Church. Was it called the Catholic Church when it was built? No. There is nothing in the Bible that suggests it was called the Catholic Church. In fact, even Catholic authorities themselves admit that it was called the Church of Christ. Let me quote what a Jesuit priest wrote in his book:5. Did Jesus Christ establish a Church?Yes, from all history, both secular and profane, as well as from the Bible considered as a human document, we learn that Jesus Christ established a Church, which from the earliest times has been called after Him the Christian Church or the Church of Christ (Cassily, Francis B., S.J., Religion: Doctrine and Practice for use in Catholic High Schools. 12th and Revised edition, Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1934, p. 442-443.).Francis Cassily points out that this name is from the Bible. Is he correct? Does the Bible really mention of the term Church of Christ? Apostle Paul said:Take heed therefore to yourselves and to all the flock, over which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to feed the church of Christ which he has purchased with His blood (Acts 20:28 LAMSA Translation).Take note that Apostle Paul mentioned the term “Church of Christ” in this verse. Also the verse says that the Church is the “flock” to be fed with the spiritual food which is the word of God (Matthew 4:4). The same Church was purchased or redeemed by the precious blood of Christ.

MY RESPONSE:

Jose VENTILACION loves to cite Catholic authors, yet he uses them OUT OF CONTEXT. Nowhere in the Bible which says that the church founded by Christ was NAMED "Church of Christ" from any GREEK Bible. The Lamsa translation did not even existed prior to 1914 and more importantly his translation of Acts 20:28 "Church of Christ" is from HIS OPINION.

The Jesuit priest is stating FACTS in saying that the church founded by Christ was "HISTORICALLY" called "church of Christ", we can agree with that as IT WAS NOT BIBLICALLY. Note that if the priest is stating FACTS that the church founded by Christ was CALLED (not named) "church of Christ" then we NEED to find which church FROM HISTORY which is called " church of Christ. Which CHURCH IS HISTORICAL? That is the CATHOLIC CHURCH. Writings of the church fathers like St. Augustine attest that the Catholic Church is the one they refer to as the "church of Christ". The "Church of Christ" founded by Felix Manalo and NAMED BY HIM is the COUNTERFEIT one. It exist NOT in HISTORY until 1913, hence it CANNOT BE that "historical" church of Christ mentioned in history nor the one mentioned by the Jesuit priest.

Jose VENTILACION said:

WHEN DID THE CHURCH START?The Church started during Christ’s ministry here on earth. Contrary to what some Catholic and Protestant theologians claim that the Church started only during the day of Pentecost, there was already a “flock” during the time of Christ. He says to them: “fear not, little flock” (Luke 12:32). These are the people who were baptized into the Church as reported by John in his Gospel:Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard, “Jesus is making and baptizing more disciples than John” —although it was not Jesus himself but his disciples who baptized (John 4:1-2 NRSV).Even before the day of Pentecost, around one hundred twenty of them were gathered and they devote themselves to prayer (Acts 1:13-15). This is a proof that there were already disciples or members of the Church even before that day. Luke reported that about three thousand souls were added to the Church during the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1, 41-42, 47). He likewise reported that the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem (Acts 6:7). The Church encountered a great persecution (Acts 8:1) so they were scattered (vv. 4-5). However, those who were scattered traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch spread the gospel so a great number who believed turned to the Lord (Acts 11:19-21). In Antioch, the disciples were first called Christians (v. 26).Through the ministry of Apostle Paul and his companions, churches or congregations were established in the Gentile world (Romans 16:4, 16). However, there is no report of Apostle Peter being in Rome to give credence to the tradition concocted by Catholic apologists that he went there in Rome and established the Church. It was Apostle Paul who went to Rome since he is an apostle to the Gentiles while Apostle Peter was the apostle to the Jews (Galatians 2:8-9).

My RESPONSE:

Jose is inaccurate as he equated the word "flock" to church in its fullest sense. Christ himself declared in MATTHEW 16:17-18 to HIS DISCIPLES THAT "he will build his church" implying that while he had "flock" of disciples the church was NOT BORN yet. Moreover, he told the JEWS that the "kingdom" will be taken away from them and be given to the nation that will bear fruits.

Matthew 21:43 KJVS
[43] Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."

That spiritual nation IS THE CHURCH which was inaugurated ON THE PENTACOST which prophesied to be global/catholic as its mission covers all nations and it's TRUE to its mission UNTIL THE END OF TIME.

Jose Ventilacion argues for "apostasy", he said:

DID THE CHURCH ESTABLISHED BY CHRIST CONTINUE TO EXIST AS AN ORGANIZATION THAT UPHOLDS THE TEACHINGS OF GOD?When Jesus Christ was still here on earth, He warned His disciples that they should be careful not be deceived by the false prophets (Matthew 24:11). Apostle Paul mentioned of those who will not spare the flock after his death (Acts 20:29). He likewise warned the bishops that there will be those who shall arise and speak perverse things to draw away the disciples after them (vv. 17, 30 ASV).What are these perverse things that the false prophets shall speak in order to draw away the disciples after them? These are the doctrines of the devils mentioned by Apostle Paul in his first letter to Timothy wherein he says:Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared, Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth (1st Timothy 4:1-3, Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition).Do we find these two (2) doctrines of the devil in the world today? If we do, then the prediction concerning the falling away or the apostasy of the first century Church of Christ indeed came to pass or fulfilled. In my previous public debates with the representatives from the Roman Catholic Church, I asked them a tough question about the doctrines of the devils that Apostle Paul mentioned in 1st Timothy 4:3: “do you have any of these two doctrines?” Although Catholic defenders tried to wiggle out from answering the question, it is quite obvious that these two demonic teachings are found in the Roman Catholic Church. Written below are their acceptance that they are indeed promoting these two doctrines:“Although celibacy is not expressly enforced by our Savior, it is, however, commended so strongly by Himself and His apostles, both by word and example, that the Church felt it her duty to lay it down as a law. The discipline of the Church has been exerted from the beginning in prohibiting Priests to marry after their ordination.” (Gibbons, James Cardinal. The Faith of our Fathers. New York: P.J. Kennedy and Sons, 1917, p. 328)“What does the second commandment of the Church order us to do?It orders us to fast and abstain from flesh meat on certain days of the year.” (A Seminary Professor. Manual of Christian Doctrine: Comprising Dogma, Moral, and Worship. New York: Lassale Bureau, 1949, p. 317)The Roman Catholic Church prohibits its priests and nuns to marry. There is also a command to her members to abstain from flesh meat in certain days of the year. So, even if they would deny that they are not in custody of the doctrines of the devils, the truth remains that they are upholding these two doctrines."

MY RESPONSE:

I thought Jose will be presenting something of substance, yet he is giving us recycled ATTACKS based on his polluted mind. Marriage is seen in the Catholic Church as sacred and part of God's plan. Food in any forms meat and vegetables are also gifts from God. When we fast or abstain from them, we do it for God's glory. The DISCIPLINE OF CELIBACY and NOT EATING MEAT on certain days are NOT DOCTRINES, rather are discipline of the Church. Christ being celibate himself teaches about BEING CELIBATE for the KINGDOM OF GOD.

Jesus said:

Matthew 19:10-12 GNT
[10] His disciples said to him, “If this is how it is between a man and his wife, it is BETTER NOT TO MARRY.” [11] Jesus answered, "This teaching DOES NOT APPLY to everyone, but ONLY to those to whom God has given it. [12] For there are DIFFERENT REASONS why men cannot marry: some, because they were born that way; others, because men made them that way; and others DO NOT MARRY FOR THE SAKE of the KINGDOM of HEAVEN. Let him who CAN ACCEPT this teaching DO SO."

Apparently, IN THE KINGDOM OF MANALO almost all or if not all INC ministers are married, HENCE NO ONE OF THEM TRULY accept Christ's teaching on this matter. They serve for their own bellies.

St. Paul warned Timothy of existing cult in their time who taught that MEAT/flesh and marriage are evil hence must be avoided. They were
Called "Gnostics". These people claimed that they RECEIVED HIGHER "knowledge" or gnosis.

How do we know that it's them which St. Paul referred to?

1 Timothy 6:20 GNT
[20] Timothy, keep safe what has been entrusted to your care. Avoid the profane talk and foolish arguments of what some people wrongly call "Knowledge