Posted on 10/25/2009 5:47:50 AM PDT by NYer
Yes, probably Easter. I would certainly covet your prayers, as a recovering Protestant. This is scary as well as exciting.
Catholic Tradition does not disagree with Scripture...again, only with other personal interpretations of Scripture.
I don’t claim to give anything but my interpretation, and why I believe it. If you disagree, go ahead.
I have not, nor ever would, say “We declare, say, define and pronounce, that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to Mr Rogers.”
That would be wise of you.
Does that mean we all have to get those sweaters and stuff?
It was a little frightening typing it out, even as a jest...
If you see no more posts from me, you can assume my computer was fried by the lightening strike.
You’ll only have to wear a cardigan as some form of penance, if I’m not messing up the terminology again.
Believe me - in Tucson, that IS severe penance!
First off, the Apostles were with him; hence, he knew their sins and there was no need for them to go to confession. He was preparing them for their mission. Jesus, as we all know. is the High Priest. Christ told the apostles to follow his example: "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you" (John 20:21). Just as the apostles were to carry Christ’s message to the whole world, so they were to carry his forgiveness: "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. 18:18). This power was understood as coming from God: "All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation" (2 Cor. 5:18). Indeed, confirms Paul, "So we are ambassadors for Christ" (2 Cor. 5:20).
If the disciples believed that Christ instituted the power to sacramentally forgive sins in his stead, we would expect the apostles’ successors—the bishops—and Christians of later years to act as though such power was legitimately and habitually exercised. In fact, in early Christian writings we find no sign of protests concerning sacramental forgiveness of sins. Quite the contrary. We find confessing to a priest was accepted as part of the original deposit of faith handed down from the apostles (as already cited in my previous post). Note that the power Christ gave the apostles was twofold: to forgive sins or to hold them bound, which means to retain them unforgiven. Several things follow from this. First, the apostles could not know what sins to forgive and what not to forgive unless they were first told the sins by the sinner. This implies confession. Second, their authority was not merely to proclaim that God had already forgiven sins or that he would forgive sins if there were proper repentance.
Such interpretations don’t account for the distinction between forgiving and retaining—nor do they account for the importance given to the utterance in John 20:21–23. If God has already forgiven all of a man’s sins, or will forgive them all (past and future) upon a single act of repentance, then it makes little sense to tell the apostles they have been given the power to "retain" sins, since forgiveness would be all-or-nothing and nothing could be "retained."
Furthermore, if at conversion we were forgiven all sins, past, present, and future, it would make no sense for Christ to require us to pray, "And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors," which he explained is required because "if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses" (Matt. 6:12–15).
If forgiveness really can be partial—not a once-for-all thing—how is one to tell which sins have been forgiven, which not, in the absence of a priestly decision? You can’t very well rely on your own gut feelings. No, the biblical passages make sense only if the apostles and their successors were given a real authority.
An interesting post, but it may be a bit before I respond. Thank you.
“Feeling both perplexed at what’s happening to me, and excited.
I would imagine that’s how the Apostles felt much of the time too! My prayers are with you on your journey.
What does the Catholic Church mean by the phrase, "Outside the Church there is no salvation"
Christian, I Presume? (Salvation) [Ecumenical]
Rock Solid: The Salvation History of the Catholic Church [Ecumenical]
Who Can Be Saved?
Grace, Faith, and Works
Getting in Touch With Reality (good character and behavior as a ticket to Heaven)
My Personal Savior
The Early Church Fathers on Salvation Outside the Church [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
Extra ecclesiam - Outside the Church there is no salvation.
Is Faith Necessary for Salvation? (Part 2)
Good Will Equals Salvation? (Did the pope say non christians could be saved - part 1)
The Experience of the Salvation of Christ Today
Nonbelievers Too Can Be Saved, Says Pope
Worthy Is the Lamb?
Limbo and the Hope of Salvation
Wow.
Really?
You're telling me that's in the BIBLE?
Gosh, if we don't count the approximately 500 times that's been not only mentioned but examined on FR alone, I'd have to admit that I've never heard that before!
(Okay, I'm done with the ponderous, juvenile sarcasm. -- for the time being.)
I think it's a heck of a stretch to parlay that into (a)Sola Scriptura and (b) the notion that the Church went off the rails within about 5 minutes of that's being written. I certainly do NOT find it conclusive or dispositive. I think it's circular.
And I believe that passage is from a letter written to an episcopos, is it not?
I have already agreed that the modern sense of "priest" is more like hierous than like presbuteros. But, again, you quote a passage from Scripture as though you find it dispositive, and my sincere reaction is "So?" I am quite aware of the once-for-all nature of the sacrifice of Christ. Hebrews is one of the Epistles I actually spend considerable time with, since I find it strangely beautiful and compelling. We Catholics take seriously what Paul says about the Church as the body of Christ. The Sacrifice we offer is not, in our view, offered by us, nor is it offered more than once. It is offered by Christ once and for all.
And this goes not only for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, but also for someone's offering the pain of a migraine headache or somesuch to Jesus to be united to His Sacrifice. His is the offering, He is the offering, priest, and victim.
Are you familiar with Justin Martyr's description of Xtian Sunday worship? It was written about 156 AD.
But in general, you guys use a sort of hidden hermeneutic which is post-1500, nationalistic and, even, sort of constitutional and Montesquieu-ish (is that a word).
Say on the Marian dogmata: We do NOT think that they were handed down in secret. We make no bones at all about discussing how doctrine develops. From the 5th century Vincent of Lerins to the 19th century Newman we talk about how various points which are present in germ are over time and in response, usually, to controversy unfolded (or "developed" if you prefer.)
Once they are so unfolded then a member of the Church who does not acquiesce with that unfolding is preferring his judgment to that of the Church. And we already discussed varieties of gifts and the teaching charism and vocation as covered in Paul.
What we have hear is about 500 years of different cultures. Those on the Protestant side not only don't get the whole Catholic culture of thought and law and the rest, but they think they DO get it. They say they see, so the problem, if not the fault, remains.
I finally began to understand this when I saw how a Protestant would deliver what he clearly thought was a devastating and final argument in refutation of some Catholic dogma or practice and we'd go, "Wha'? Of Course!" just as I did with the Hebrews reference.
You say, "Priesthood of all believers, once for all, so their can't be a Catholic priesthood," while we say, "Priesthood of all believers, once for all, THEREFORE there is a Catholic priesthood."
Then one side accuses the other of being disingenuous and goes off in a huff.
In another thread you said you don't require satisfaction from your horses, you require only amendment, (more or less.) I answered something like, "You could rephrase that as, 'The only satisfaction I require is amendment.'" But the conversation languished.
You're being disingenuous! Huff!
[Petronski scuttles off, but stops and returns just as fast]
Oh wait, you're on my team.
Nevermind.
A lot of the former Catholics on this forum like to bash the Church as the reason they fell away. I would venture a guess that some of them were not properly raised as Catholics and were not thought to be thinking members of the faith.
Some fell away as children, so their understanding of the Church is still a child’s limited understanding. They’ve never bothered to go back and examine it with an adult’s understanding.
Some do go back and examine it, but they are just looking for proof that what they did was right. They won’t look at anything that indicates they fell away because they were a) improperly taught, b) spiritually lazy, c) not up to the challenging discipline the Church asks, d) not content with the Truth and wanted something a little more touchy-feely, e) didn’t like it when the Church told them “NO, you can’t do that, e) all of the above.
The God of the Bible, in both the Old and New Testaments, is a God of Authority. He demands we believe His words and take action based on them. It doesn’t make sense that He would set a Church up WITHOUT authority. It’s against God’s nature.
Christ Himself demanded complete belief and compliance with His teachings and let those who didn’t walk away. It was hard then— and it’s hard now. The Catholic Church is the authority Christ set up. Of course, it’s much easier to just read the Bible for yourself and decide for yourself what you’d like it to mean.
I’m glad you spoke up and refuted the misinformation about Catholics. Many claim we don’t read the Bible. It must be those poorly trained Catholics who were never taught to read the Bible who tell them that. We read the Bible as a community at Mass on a three year cycle. And this Catholic reads the Bible cover to cover every year, on her own. Here’s a news flash: lots of us do.
I agree.
Reformers don’t have to go to a priest to be forgiven. We repent of our sins to God through His Son Jesus, who died for our sins. He tells us to do that in His Word and then the Lord forgives us our trespasses. Why make it so hard for people? Jesus did it all on the cross.
Amen.
Sir.
I’m going to have to ask you to step out of that huff. Keep your hands where I can see them. Good. Now, turn around and face the huff and put your hands on the roof.
Sir, do you know why I stopped you?
....
I think a lot of the "former Catholics" on here are flat out lying and were NEVER Catholics. I think they are simply on here using "former Catholic" talking points compiled by their bigoted groups.
Me, too, John. I know I’m saved and don’t have to wait until the grave to be certain.
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.