Posted on 03/17/2015 6:38:50 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
Can anyone get in on this turning blue contest?
Bless your heart. You’re trying so hard and failing all the time.
Ultimately it came from herself. For the weight of Scriptural substantiation cannot be the basis for assurance of doctrine, as it is to be with evangelicals, but instead it rests upon the premise of the ensured magisterial veracity of Rome, who has infallibly declared herself (conditionally) infallible.
Yet NT presbuteros (elders) were never titled “hiereus” (= priest, from "preost"), which is only used for Jewish and pagan priests which have a unique sacerdotal function as their primary role, unlike NT presbuteros.
And while the binding and loosing aspect that pertains to forgiveness (which can be related to healing) - that of God removing chastisement due to intercession of others, as Christ showed, (Mk. 2:5-11; Jn. 5:8ff) - does apply primarily to the elders, yet what Jn. 5:16-18 exhorts is believers also confessing faults to other believers and praying for such that they may be healed.
For while the judicial function of binding and loosing in Mt,. 18 begins with the magisterium, the spiritual power of binding and loosing can be had by any righteous laity of fervent prayer:
Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 18:18-19)
Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit. (James 5:16-18)
James is teaching that any righteous man can be like Elias who bound the heavens from raining for 3.5 years, and then loosed them again. And which has application in other areas (not "name is claim it.")
Moreover, Mt. 18:15-17 specifically deals with judgments in personal matters. And which power to bind or loose was not new, but was based upon the means of judgment seen in the OT. In Dt. 17, if there arose a matter too hard for them in judgment, "between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within their gates," then it was brought before the Levitical magisterial authority, whose judgment was binding to one, and loosing to the other.
According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left. (Deuteronomy 17:11)
The Lord also enjoined conditional obedience to the Scribes and Pharisees, (Mt. 23:2) and who claimed the power of dissolving vows, etc. But not as being the supreme infallible standard, thus the Lord reproved their unScriptural judgments by Scripture. (Mk. 7:2-16
Paul with the church also exercised this binding power in 1Cor. 5 "In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. (1 Corinthians 5:4-5)" (1 Corinthians 5:5)
And fathers and husbands are given some binding and loosing power in regards to daughters and wives respectively. (Num 30:3-7)
Even valid civil authorities have a power to bind and loose, physically. (Rm. 13:1-7) .
Yet even though disobedience to the OT magisterium could a capital offence, yet it was not infallible, which Rome presumed to claim she is, nor was the novel idea of perpetual magisterial infallibility ever promised or seen or necessary for discernment and preservation of faith.
The books in the Bible did it fall from the skies and self-assemble themselves,. They were the result of serious study by the early Church fathers (theologians) who under infallible Petrine authority declared the Bible to be the true written word of God.
You are misstating or making things up as you go. The majority of the books of the Bible were already recognized as being of God before there even was a church, as seen by the multitudinous OT quotes and references in the NT, while the NT was not the work of ECFs or even a project of the NT magisterial office, but were written by men wholly by the inspiration of God, unlike so-called infallible decrees of Rome or arguments for them. And unlike the latter for RCs, they were only progressively established as being of God, with doubts and disagreements about some books continuing down thru the centuries among RC scholars until Trent issued the first "infallible" indisputable definition, after Luther died (1546).
Under John 21: 25 there were so many things that Christ said and did that were not written down.
Indeed, nor does Rome know all that can be known, nor does Scripture teach all such is necessary, but
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:31)
Thus ONLY the Catholic Church has within her the written and unwritten word of God.
Which may be a comforting assertion for RCs, but what is the basis for your assurance that this is true of Rome?
Thanks for the ping. I see no reason to not wish you a speedy recovery. Christ would be disappointed in me if I didn’t have a kind word for you.
Thank you very much for the good will and the kind words.
I'm glad you are noticing.
“I’m glad you are noticing.”
Of course you are. It’s what you’re all about apparently.
I know that, as an Archbishop, he would stare at buxom women’s breasts.
By the way, don’t ping me if you don’t want my input.
Stick to your own ilk.
To avoid this kind of tempting and awkward situation, women are usually expected to dress modestly --- at all times, not just when visiting the Archbishop.
In any case, a stray glance at Miss Boobalicious --- not at all indulged in a deliberate way ---- is not the same as committing adultery with her in your heart, much less "living in continuous state of adultery which is a state of mortal sin."
This kind of accusation consists, as I've said before, of rash judgment, detraction, defamation or calumny. It does not correct the sinner, does not help the reader, and does not reflect well on the writer.
Like #55?
#55 is a long item. Which part or parts are you referring to?
...rash judgment, detraction, defamation or calumny.
Reread my original post and get off your high horse. I never accused Francis of anything. I asked you a question and you turned around and accused me of rash judgement, detraction, defamation or calumny.
Have you ever seen a Pope more interested in appeasing people who wish to continue to engage in illicit sex or a bishop who can’t keep custody of his eyes and when caught laughs it off? That’s the reason behind my original question: does this pope have a vested interest in the heresy he proposes? He even has a homosexual “house mother” running Santa Marta.
Talk about “smelling like the sheep”! Sheesh.
Once again, don’t ping me, if you don’t want my input.
You certainly have my prayers.
Thanks; but I think Francis needs them more.
Well, right. Let’s join each other in praying for Francis, then.
you need to pay close attention to this thread or better yet, study up on the Catholic religion...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.