Posted on 11/03/2007 5:03:12 PM PDT by annalex
Amen. Thanks for all the follow up info.
Why would a local Bishop preside in the presence of the supreme Pope? I doubt it works like that today. :) That doesn't logically follow.
God renamed many people in scriptures without ever giving them papal authority. The keys are a basic scriptural difference of interpretation we have. The mention of prayer at the Last Supper was to encourage Peter after he would betray Jesus. It was not a conveyance of authority. The "feed my lambs" discourse was the mirror of the betrayal. The point was to show Peter what he had done.
I'm sure you would.
I think history bears me out on this, the opposite is what has occurred. Instead of being throughly directed by the Holy Spirit the RCC has become man centered with a whole host of doctrines/dogmas that are not Scriptural. The RCC has recreated the Judaic model with a stratified clergy that rules the laity. In the RC system it is the clergy that mediate between GOD and man, dispensing Grace as they see fit.
Our Saviour Jesus Christ did not set up this model. Instead what he told us is so simple we have a need to make it complicated.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
ITim. 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,
The monobishophoric system that developed after the Apostolic Era was never of new covenant design. I have no doubt that many of those responsible thought they were doing a good thing, but the end result has been a neutering of the gift of the Holy Spirit.
It's always a pleasure!
I don't know how you can patiently respond to everything, but it is fun to follow the discussions. I know for me I get busy with work at times and can't respond for awhile. My hat's off to you.
If the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are not the gospel (the means by which we are saved - the door to heaven opened to us) what are they?
I just meant that the keys are not something that Peter exclusively held (and by extension only the Apostles and their direct successors). This is from The Heidelberg Confession:
Question 83. What are the keys of the kingdom of heaven?
Answer: The preaching of the holy gospel, and christian discipline, or excommunication out of the christian church; by these two, the kingdom of heaven is opened to believers, and shut against unbelievers.
Question 84. How is the kingdom of heaven opened and shut by the preaching of the holy gospel?
Answer: Thus: when according to the command of Christ, it is declared and publicly testified to all and every believer, that, whenever they receive the promise of the gospel by a true faith, all their sins are really forgiven them of God, for the sake of Christ's merits; and on the contrary, when it is declared and testified to all unbelievers, and such as do not sincerely repent, that they stand exposed to the wrath of God, and eternal condemnation, so long as they are unconverted: (a) according to which testimony of the gospel, God will judge them, both in this, and in the life to come.
(a) Matt.16:18 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. Matt.16:19 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 loosed in heaven. Matt.18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. Matt.18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. Matt.18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Matt.18:18 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. Matt.18:19 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. John 20:21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: John 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
Question 85. How is the kingdom of heaven shut and opened by christian discipline?
Answer: Thus: when according to the command of Christ, those, who under the name of christians, maintain doctrines, or practices inconsistent therewith, and will not, after having been often brotherly admonished, renounce their errors and wicked course of life, are complained of to the church, or to those, who are thereunto appointed by the church; and if they despise their admonition, are by them forbidden the use of the sacraments; whereby they are excluded from the christian church, and by God himself from the kingdom of Christ; and when they promise and show real amendment, are again received as members of Christ and his church. (a)
(a) Matt.18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. Matt.18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. Matt.18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Matt.18:18 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. 1 Cor.5:2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. 1 Cor.5:3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, 1 Cor.5:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 1 Cor.5:5 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 Cor.5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. 2 Thess.3:14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. 2 Thess.3:15 Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. 2 Cor.2:6 Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many. 2 Cor.2:7 So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. 2 Cor.2:8 Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him.
-----------------
So, it appears that it comes down to who is "The Church". For the Latins, it appears that term has a very flexible definition. :)
I, frankly, don't know how it would work today, but what if today the Pope would preside? No questions many things changed around the papacy through its 2,000 years of history. You cannot dispute that the entire issue was driven by St. Peter converting the first Gentiles, St. Peter having the vision that lead the Church do lift the dietetic restrictions; and it is St. Peter who makes the decisive speech, following which "all the multitude held their peace". St. James merely dictates the consensus that St. Peter had formed.
God renamed many people in scriptures
In fact, Abraham together with his wife, and Jacob were renamed, the father of monotheism and the father of the Jewish nation. This puts St. Peter in a very exceptional company.
The keys are a basic scriptural difference of interpretation we have.
You simply do not have an interpretation. The Hedelberg confession is plain absurd. If the keys are "preaching of the holy gospel" where is that interperetation suggested in the Scripture? Peter is not even among the evangelists. The Church and St. Peter are mentioned in the passage; the scripture is not. The Heidelberg confession is a wholy unscriptural set of musings that doesn't even attempt to link the interpretation to the actual gospel text.
The mention of prayer at the Last Supper was to encourage Peter after he would betray Jesus. It was not a conveyance of authority
"Thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren" (Luke 22:32) says that Peter will lead the apostles. One who confirms others has the authority to confirm, it seems to me.
The "feed my lambs" discourse was the mirror of the betrayal.
That is was: it restored Peter's primacy. If, following the repeated confession of love, Christ wanted to "encourage" Peter, He would not have put him up for anoyher task of feeding ang guiding the "lambs", that is, the apostles and the rest of the Church (cf Luke 10:3).
We just see one such theological flight of fancy, the Heidelberg confession, right here, scandalously unscriptural.
John 3:16 ... ITim. 2:5
These verses do not speak at all to the manner of salvation; they do establish the Catholic concept of salvation through Christ alone. However, Christ also built His Church; -- on the person of Peter. This is the part Protestantism denies, heretically and unscripturally.
18... 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 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
The keys are given personally to Peter, they are related to the Church of Christ build on the Peter's person, they will enable Peter to legislate on earth, and Christ promises that whatever Peter legislates on earth Christ will hold in Heaven. What is the subject of the legislation? The passage explains it is twofold: it has to do with defeating Hell and it has to do with opening Heaven. So St. Peter can send peope to Hell, that is, excommunicate them from the Catholic Church; and he can send them to Heaven, that is canonize them as saints; exactly what the popes are doing to this day. It is not a complicated text.
I could be wrong, but my understanding is that the council that recognized the infallibility of the Pope (in certain circumstances) applied it retroactively to all prior Popes. Therefore, I "think", the primacy of the Pope would be something "always and everywhere believed by the Church". That doesn't match the council we're talking about in Acts.
In fact, this is from New Advent under the subsection: (1) The Pope's Universal Coercive Jurisdiction:
Not only did Christ constitute St. Peter head of the Church, but in the words, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed in heaven," He indicated the scope of this headship.
The expressions binding and loosing here employed are derived from the current terminology of the Rabbinic schools. A doctor who declared a thing to be prohibited by the law was said to bind, for thereby he imposed an obligation on the conscience. He who declared it to be lawful was said to loose). In this way the terms had come respectively to signify official commands and permissions in general. The words of Christ, therefore, as understood by His hearers, conveyed the promise to St. Peter of legislative authority within the kingdom over which He had just set him, and legislative authority carries with it as its necessary accompaniment judicial authority. (emphasis added)
Moreover, the powers conferred in these regards are plenary. This is plainly indicated by the generality of the terms employed: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind . . . Whatsoever thou shalt loose"; nothing is withheld. Further, Peter's authority is subordinated to no earthly superior. (emphasis added)
The article doesn't appear to address the problem we are discussing. Obviously, the claim is that Peter had full authority from the word Go, yet that's not what scripture reveals.
St. James merely dictates the consensus that St. Peter had formed.
Well, THAT'S a pretty creative interpretation. :) Quoting James:
Acts 15:19 : "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.
Yeah, right. James was just a yes man. Peter was really in charge all along. :)
In fact, Abraham together with his wife, and Jacob were renamed, the father of monotheism and the father of the Jewish nation. This puts St. Peter in a very exceptional company.
Sure, the same company as Paul, a giant in Reformed theology. :) In my opinion, Paul would have had nothing to do with the idea of a Pope. He was a humble servant. It was other Apostles who asked who would be the greatest. Jesus always had the same answer, he who is least. That goes against almost everything associated with the papacy.
If the keys are "preaching of the holy gospel" where is that interpretation suggested in the Scripture? Peter is not even among the evangelists. The Church and St. Peter are mentioned in the passage; the scripture is not.
The Gospel is mentioned. Today, that is contained in its most pure form in the scriptures. ...... The keys metaphor symbolizes that which separates the man from Heaven. Salvation is what crosses that obstacle. Faith comes from hearing, etc. Jesus sent all of His children out to make disciples by preaching the word of God. It's just basic theology 101.
"Thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren" (Luke 22:32) says that Peter will lead the apostles. One who confirms others has the authority to confirm, it seems to me.
The conversion being spoken of here is Peter's repentance of his betrayal of Christ. Once that is done, Christ says Peter should minister to his brothers. It is a message for all of us. The word in my Bible is "strengthen", not "confirm".
If, following the repeated confession of love, Christ wanted to "encourage" Peter, He would not have put him up for another task of feeding and guiding the "lambs", that is, the apostles and the rest of the Church (cf Luke 10:3).
Baptism by fire. God never promised us a cake walk. :) Experience breeds confidence. The encouragement would come with experience. God was in full control anyway, so it was all according to plan.
But St. James did not contradict St. Peter in Acts 15! He presided, over the Council, yes. There is a moment in the scripture where St. Peter is contradicted (on eating separately from the Gentiles), as well as of course he outright betrayed Christ, but there is no instance where St. Peter was teaching something on faith and morals and the Church decided differently, after the Church was formed in Acts 2.
the same company as Paul, a giant in Reformed theology
Saul was not renamed ceremoniously by Christ. In fact, he is called Saul well into his covnerted discipleship. The first time Saul is identified as Paul is matter-of-factly in Acts 13:9 "Saul, otherwise Paul".
It is amusing how the Reformed appropriate St. Paul as if he taught something other than Catholic Christianity. It is especially silly given that it is from the writings of St. Paul that we derive most of your distinctive Catholic features: apostolic and hierarchical character of the Church, sacramental character of the Holy Eucharist, insufficiency of faith alone, equal importance of tradition and scripture.
The Gospel is mentioned
Where? Read the text, don't spin it. I told you what is mentioned: Church, heaven, hell, legislation on matters of salvation.
Peter should minister to his brothers. It is a message for all of us
Exactly; but only Peter is expressly charged with that at the Last Supper, while all of the the Apostles are also given a task to celebrate the Eucharist. Only in the case of Peter the charge is to strengthen or confirm his fellow apostles. This charge was not removed after the betrayal and repeated confession at the end of the book of John, as we can see in the charge to "feed Christ's lambs". This is the primary job description of the Pope, to guide the bishops, who all are primary ministers of the Holy Eucharist in the Church.
He didn't have to contradict Peter to have the authority. Peter made a case, and James agreed in James' decision. I don't at all get the impression that if James had disagreed with Peter that Peter would or could have said "I overrule you."
Saul was not renamed ceremoniously by Christ. In fact, he is called Saul well into his converted discipleship.
Are you saying that Paul renamed himself? I doubt it. As a Jew, he knew the importance of names, so I don't think he would have just made a change for no reason unless by order of God. I can't think of any other examples of self renaming by a righteous man.
It is amusing how the Reformed appropriate St. Paul as if he taught something other than Catholic Christianity.
Does Catholic Christianity teach salvation by grace alone through faith, and not by works? Besides, this notion has been projected onto us by your side! You should have seen earlier on the 10,000+ post Pope thread. We were mocked and called names such as "Paulines" because supposedly we follow Paul instead of the Gospels. That label was put on us by Apostolics, not by us. We just call ourselves Christians. :)
Exactly; but only Peter is expressly charged with that at the Last Supper, while all of the the Apostles are also given a task to celebrate the Eucharist. Only in the case of Peter the charge is to strengthen or confirm his fellow apostles.
That is a HUGE stretch. Strengthening each other, etc. is a command to ALL Christians:
Heb 10:19-25 : 19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. 24 And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. 25 Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another — and all the more as you see the Day approaching.
The writer is also asking for himself to be encouraged.
No, of course not; the issue was that this episode does not contradict the Petrine primacy. On the spot, I cannot think of any instance through history when a Pope overruled a consensus of bishops. We are very much a consiliar church. May St. Athanasius did in his Contra Mundum stance against the Arians, but certainly the execrise of papal infallible authority is a very rare occurence, if it has ever happened at all.
Paul renamed himself?
That I cannot say. but the scripture does not attach to his name change any significance. It did not accompamy the conversion. It does not have the same Old Testament ring to it as Simon's renaming into Peter.
Does Catholic Christianity teach salvation by grace alone through faith, and not by works?
Of course not, but neither does St. Paul. Paul teaches that salvation does not come by works of obligation or reward, but the works of slef-denial and love are or primary importance, and we teach accordingly.
called names such as "Paulines"
I would never do that. Pauline Christianity is Catholic Christianity. The reference thatI can recognize is to our conviction that the Reformed theology takes a few verses from Paul out of context and ignores the rest. but "Paulines" you are not; we are.
Strengthening each other, etc. is a command to ALL Christians
It is generally, yes, but the passage gives specific tasks to specific people: the apostles are to give the Eucharist ("do it"), while Peter is aditionally told to "strengthen his brethren".
Of course not, but neither does St. Paul. Paul teaches that salvation does not come by works of obligation or reward, but the works of self-denial and love are or primary importance, and we teach accordingly.
I don't see where Paul makes any such distinction. Sometimes the phrase "works of the Law" is used, but that only helps my position. :)
If for you salvation is grace plus works, then does not one get REWARDED with entry into Heaven based partially on his works? IOW, one does works of love, but clearly there is a reward waiting for him later. That is work for reward. Further:
Rom 11:6 : And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.
The context of this can be none other than many thought keeping the works of the Law was how to get into Heaven. Those are works of love. No one thought doing works for pay was the way into Heaven, so the "no longer" would not apply, yet it's there. Paul was definitely teaching Sola Fide/Gratia.
But "Paulines" you are not; we are.
It was actually kind of funny because as I was reading this in the other thread in various "high-five" posts, I was thinking to myself, "what's wrong with being a Pauline if it just means following what Paul says?" :) I understand there is a difference in interpretation, but I would think there would be an equal difference in other parts of scripture as well.
True. This is what St. Paul corrects: purportedly salvific nature of obedience to law.
Those are works of love
No. St. Paul ends everty letter of his with exhortations to works of love; he also says
2 ... if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.Faith alone is not salvific and sacrifice alone is not salvific. Faith is important, but works of love are "the greatest"....
13 And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity. (1 Cor 13)
Of course not. It's not as if Paul would ever write anything like this:
But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who “will render to each one according to his deeds”: eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God.
No. St. Paul ends every letter of his with exhortations to works of love; he also says ... (1 Cor. 13)
Of course Paul wants us to do works of love. God commands it here:
Matt 22:34-40 : 34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37 Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
Jesus Himself says that doing works of love is following the Law. And Paul tells us that this is NOT how to get into Heaven. Charity, and the like, are FRUITS of salvation, not causes for it. Without fruits, one is not saved.
Faith is important, but works of love are "the greatest".
For salvation, that's exactly what many Jews thought of the Law. It's what Paul shot down.
Where does St. Paul teach that?
Of faith, love, and charity, ...charity is the greatest. (Charity as in giving with no anticipation of anyting at all in return,...not charity as in Hillary Clinton’s nonprofit organization model which seeks admiration if it gives and demands authority if it takes away to give to whom they view as worthy in their own eyes...)
Of course not. It's not as if Paul would ever write anything like this:
Paul recognizes the truth of POTS. He acknowledges the fact that those who do no works are not saved. He is not talking causality, or else we have to throw out the theology he otherwise lays out in his writings. In your quote, Paul is exhorting that we check ourselves to make sure we are not false believers, to make sure we are not going to be of the "Lord, Lord" crowd. If we do so honestly, and find that we are slaves to sin, then we need to come to Christ for the first time (for real). Paul appears to clearly suspect that his immediate audience is in that group.
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.