Posted on 05/01/2014 3:25:30 AM PDT by GonzoII
This is RICH!
Coming from someone who has taken it upon themselves to JUDGE my words and my MOTIVEs!
Matthew 16:19:
And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed[d] in heaven.”
Vatican 1:
Therefore,
faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith,
to the glory of God our saviour,
for the exaltation of the catholic religion and
for the salvation of the christian people,
with the approval of the sacred council,
we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when,
in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses,
by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
Ok
And Protestants operate under the preconceived premise of "faith alone" and force there understanding of Scripture to agree with it. They are just bound to their traditions as Catholics and also subject to discipline if they depart. How long would a Protestant minister be tolerated teaching the Catholic understanding of Scripture before he would be shown the door? Would I be welcomed to be a regular preacher at your church?
Which affirms what I said, as this [the First Apology of St. Justin Martyr] is not even Scripture, but tradition…
But it is a witness of what the early Christians actually believed. We will not find this disputed for 1500 years until Martin Luther.
… and can vary on the meaning of Real Presence, and Justin see different interpretations, including that of Catholic author William A. Jurgenes, “The change referred to here is the change which takes place when the food we eat is assimilated and becomes part of our own body” (Jurgens W, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume I, p. 57).
You completely misunderstand Jurgens' footnote. Here is the passage in which the footnote appears:
For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished (20), is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnate Jesus.The footnote that you mention (20) refers to the clause:
… and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished…This is a subordinate clause in the passage. In the original Greek:
ἐξ ἧς αἷμα χαὶ σάρχες χατὰ μεταβολὴν τρέφονται ἡμῶνIn the Anti-Nicene Fathers it is rendered thus:
… and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished …This footnote is not referring to the change of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus. Indeed, the reality of this latter change is the point that Justin is trying to make, comparing it to Jesus taking on flesh and blood in the Incarnation. Notice the argument of Justin if the main clause is highlighted, allowing us to skip over the two subordinate clauses:
For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, IS the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.Which again shows how quickly the prophecy of Paul began to be fulfilled of men “speaking perverse things” others would follow…
And thus you would have the entire body of Christians forget the truth for 1500 years until a minority of believers rediscovered the truth. And are we to believe that the truth was so completely forgotten at such an early date that there is no record of a protest against it.?
However, what matters is that the literal understanding contradicts Scripture which only speaks of spiritual nourishment as being by hearing/receiving the word of Christ, not even physically eating anything, much less human flesh and blood:
No, this is the literal understanding of Scripture. It is the Protestants who must spiritualize this and many other passages to force the Scriptures to match their preconceived idea of "faith alone".
The reason for their authority being such that what they wrote was received by the Church was because it of the established authority of Scripture which confirmed it, as per conformity in text and in power and in principle. Upon which the church began.
The authority of which Scripture? The gospel message is something that goes beyond the Old Testament, being a new revelation by God. In cannot be the New Testament since the authority of the apostles predates their writings. No, the Church, having been established by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles, was active and alive before the writing of the New Testament. The writings of the New Testament were founded upon the proclamation of the Church, not the other way around.
Rather, you have the cart before the horse, as the reason their was a church was because Scripture preceded it as the assured Word of God and supreme standard for testing and establishing truth claims.
No, it is you who have it backwards. The Church finds its beginnings at Pentecost, before the writings of the New Testament.
Kephas means rock in Aramaic.
Petros/Peter are the BEST Greek and Latin translations.
Even if one goes strictly with the Greek, Petros does not mean a single pebble, but a mound of pebbles which are solidified into one large rock. This makes sense when one considers that we are all living stones in the Kingdom of God. Peter was The Pebble, the rock that is all the other pebbles collectively, i.e. The Church.
However, it has been explained ad nauseum that there was no proper Greek translation for the name which Jesus gave to Simon in the Aramaic, Petros being the masculine form of petras which does in fact mean rock.
I live with the fact that Jesus said to Simon, I say to you that you are Kephas AND upon this rock I will build my church. He did not say, you are Kephas BUT upon this rock I will build my church.
It seems to be protestants who cannot live with it.
I was not suggesting that Petrine authority was based on the power of binding or loosing, only correcting a mistake by Elsie who was trying to make a point from a misreading of the text. This highlights the deficiency of private interpretation.
Given, as you have shown, that the power of binding and loosing was not unique to Peter, it is something that is proper to the Church. Where is the power today?
You anticipated me by your reference to Isaiah 22. Here the grant of keys represents the bestowing of the office of Master of the Palace. Likewise when our Lord promises to give the keys of the kingdom of heaven (and here it is only to Peter) he is likewise bestowing an office like that of the Master of the Palace. The Roman term for this office is vicar. Hence Peter, by our Lord's instillation, is his vicar, i.e. the Vicar of Christ.
So here, when Peter has a perfect chance to grant forgiveness on his own initiative, instead he does two things, neither of them a grant of forgiveness.
You forget that the power is to forgive sins (which is explicitly mentioned in John 20:23) or to retain them. Absolution must be accompanied by repentance, contrition and a firm resolution to sin no more. Addressing Simon, Peter states, "Your heart is not upright before God. Repent of this wickedness of yours." Simon is not yet ready of forgiveness. Hence, Peter not offering absolution proves nothing.
Unlike Peter whom had his name given to Him by God for the purpose which he had been chosen, to lead Christ’s Church.
For some reason, the word UNHINGED keeps coming to my mind.
You are mistaking a part for the whole. The Roman church is only the diocese of Rome. Rather, the authority of the Apostles headed by Peter is today vested in the entire Catholic Church headed by the Pope as their successors. Nor can you just point to all believers. The refusal of all believers to recognize the legitimate authority established by Jesus Christ has resulted in the division and multitude of churches today.
The Eastern Orthodox would disagree with you. They do not recognize the absolute authority of the pope. Matter of fact, they consider Rome the schismatics.
Both claim to be but have significant doctrinal differences, ones that Rome says damn a man if not adhered to.
So which one is the TRUE Catholic church?
The Orthodox are simply wrong. But even if they are right, the Protestants are still wrong. Other than the question of the papacy, Catholics and Orthodox present a common witness to the apostolic faith.
Why do you insist on ignoring what THIS is?
What has the church LOOSED lately?
Keep repeating what you’ve been taught; Manchurian Candidate.
And if the PROTESTants are right; then them DAMNED Mormons are wrong!
But if the Mormons just happen to, be right; then for SURE them crazy Scientologists are FRACTLY wrong!
(If not plain UNHINGED!!!)
He sounds very Lutheran 8-)
2Peter 1:16-21 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
The above passage has been often wrenched out of its natural meaning to say what it does not say. Humans are epistemologically trapped. They must begin all perception with "private interpretation" of any data coming to them from outside themselves. It's how God made us. We have no choice. It is no more logical that God should prohibit "private interpretation" of this kind, than that He should prohibit us to use our own eyes to see the world He has created around us. That world is objectively real, even if our eyes are faulty. But we must still view it through our own eyes. So this is an impossible "interpretation."
But there is an easy and more natural meaning to Peter's words, one that violates neither the sense nor the grammar of the text. For review, here's the Greek:
2Peter 1:20 τουτο πρωτον γινωσκοντες οτι πασα προφητεια γραφης ιδιας επιλυσεως ου γινεται
Note the bolded verb above, "ginetai." This is not the verb of simply being, as "estin" is. This verb speaks of "coming into being." Peter is not prohibiting individuals from thinking for themselves in trying to understand what God has said. He is saying the prophet is not explaining or disclosing (επιλυσεως) any private ideas of his own, but is disclosing what originated with the Holy Spirit of God. Hence it is not private to the prophet. These words do not originate in the prophet's will, but God's, and that is why they are 100% reliable, "more sure" than even being eyewitnesses to the transfiguration of Christ. Unlike the typical "no private interpretation" diatribe, this approach actually integrates the sense of the passage, and makes all the parts work together toward the same goal.
Where is the power [of binding and loosing] today?/i>
A fair question, but I submit to you that the better question, at least initially, is where in the New Testament record of the early church was that power used? Consider the anomaly of John 20:21-23:
John 20:21-23 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
This occurred after the resurrection but before Pentecost. We know the Holy Spirit came in power on the apostles and the church at large on Pentecost. So what is this intermediate receiving of the Holy Spirit in connection with the Apostles being sent? We know that the thing they are being sent to do is to proclaim the Gospel, and it is the Gospel which establishes the terms of God’s forgiveness. But again, that was not preached in power until later at Pentecost. Yet to declare the Gospel at all with any useful effect cannot be done without some measure of aid from God’s Spirit. So the receiving of the Spirit seems to continue the impetus of the Gospel commission they are receiving here.
But where is the binding and loosing, the forgiving or retaining? Is there no example of it, or is it sitting right under our noses in the NT record if only we looked in the right place and right way to see it? As I pointed out before with Simon the sorcerer, not only does Peter not grant absolution to Simon who is apparently not yet ready for such forgiveness, but Peter specifically directs him to go to God for forgiveness, apparently assuming he might have some future inclination to seek forgiveness. Peter does NOT say, when you’re ready for absolution, my son, get back to me or one of the other apostles and we’ll work out this forgiveness thing. It doesn’t happen. He tells Simon to go to God for forgiveness.
Peter DOES however cast Simon out on the street as it were, excluding him from the fellowship for revealing his true state of lostness. In this he is exerting church discipline. This is not presuming a power to forgive as God does, but it does assume authority to set temporal boundaries for the well-being of the church. Remember also what happened to Annanias and Saphira, not that they were ultimately lost to eternal damnation. The text says no such thing.
But they were judged for their lie to the Holy Spirit, a frightful but essentially temporal judgment, and done for what reason? The well-being of the Body of Christ, the believers. And why should they be kept so strictly in line? Because the well-being of the church was essential to the propagation of the Gospel message. And what does the Gospel message do? It sets the terms of forgiveness. Accept those terms, and your sins are forgiven. Reject those terms, and your sins are retained.
So what we see developing here is really a multifaceted meaning to the power to bind or loose, to forgive or retain. We see it applied to defining the church in terms of temporal membership, as with Simon the sorcerer, or in terms of church discipline of wayward believers, such Paul’s involvement in restoring the man at Corinth who had been involved in extraordinary sexual sin:
2Cor 2:10 To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ;
…with “person of Christ” better rendered as “presence of Christ.”
We also see it in terms of setting doctrinal boundaries according to apostolic teaching, as in the statement of the Jerusalem council (of which James appears to have been the principal architect, not Peter). It is even possible to see it in terms of the unfolding of the various apostolic ministries, such as Peter’s specialized ministry to the Jews and Paul’s specialized ministry to the Gentiles, both of which “loosed” their respective groups to the forgiveness found in the Gospel.
What we do not have even one example of is the exercise of sacerdotal absolution. No individual is ever granted forgiveness by any Apostle. In contrast, in one of the few parables of Jesus dealing directly with the dynamics of personal forgiveness, we have this:
Luk 18:10-14 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
Now how can that Publican go down to his house justified, if all he did was ask God directly to be merciful to him? No priest needed. If Jesus had wanted to convey the importance of priestly intervention in the process of forgiveness, this was the moment to do it, and it didn’t happen.
But now we see the curtain in the temple is torn in two, and God the Covenanter has by His sacrifice taken away that which separated Him from His people, and opened up the Holy of Holys, so that we may now say with the writer of Hebrews:
Heb 4:14-16 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
Peace,
SR
And Protestants operate under the preconceived premise of "faith alone" and force there understanding of Scripture to agree with it.
Which is Scriptural if meaning that it is precisely faith alone that appropriates justification before God in conversion, not works of merit, yet not an inert faith, but the kind of faith that effects works, and which faith-in-action justifies/vindicates one as being a truly saved believer.
Otherwise James is contradicting both Moses and Paul, since both state "Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." (Romans 4:3; Gn. 15:6) Which was even before circumcision, and nothing is said by them about Abraham first being counted righteousness due to offering up Issac years later, (Gn. 22) which a casual reading of James can seem to infer.
Many RC theologians understand that the Epistles of both Apostles deal with different subjects, and without direct relation to the other. Yet they do not go far enough, as "works of the law" encompasses all systems of justification by one's own works earning it.
But as a prophet is known by God as a prophet before his prophecies see fulfillment, so God see the faith in the heart than will effect works, and counts such as righteousness then, while blessing their obedience of faith which "fulfils" the affirmation that they were righteous, and affirms their status.
Thus faith justifies the Un Godly, and Peter states that Cornelius and co., who was lost, had his heart purified by faith.
But sola fide is typically misunderstood or misrepresented by RCs as meaning works are superfluous, and or that this leaves a man merely whitewashed, neither of which is true. Preaching by Reformers clearly affirmed the necessity of an obedient faith if such claimed to be a believers. ."Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!" [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-faith.txt]
And in conversion one is regenerated to walk in newness of life.
They are just bound to their traditions as Catholics and also subject to discipline if they depart. How long would a Protestant minister be tolerated teaching the Catholic understanding of Scripture before he would be shown the door? Would I be welcomed to be a regular preacher at your church?
Your comparison is based upon a misunderstanding of the issue, which is not that required submission is wrong, but its basis.
Under Rome implicit assent of faith is required for teaching from the sacred magisterium, while even non-infallible teaching is to be believed with Divine and Catholic faith and met with religious submission of will and intellect.
In contrast the Biblical model is stated well by Westminster, " It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word." (Westminster ,CHAPTERs 1, 31)
The key distinction is that qualified submission is consistent with how the church began, which not as per Rome, with assent of mind and will to those who were the instruments and stewards of Divine revelation, but while general submission to them was enjoined by the Lord, the church began in dissent from them, based upon Scriptural substantiation by which Christ established His truth claims.
Both a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium and the submission it requires, and leads to the same for the Ordinary magisterium, it not Scriptural. To claim and requite both is a presumption to the place of Deity. Only God is worthy of such.
But it is a witness of what the early Christians actually believed. We will not find this disputed for 1500 years until Martin Luther.
If so (though it is understood that what have available to see only provides a small selection of writings of the Church "Fathers"), and it overall basically seems so, it remains a testimony to how a non-salvific error can be held along with Truth. The Catholic concept and thus infatuation with the Eucharist based on the use of words in the gospels which elsewhere often see figurative meaning, is simply not manifest in the rest of the NT.
I myself believed it for many years as a RC after i had actually become born again. As such errors become deeper and multiplied, reformation would be required due to deformation.
You completely misunderstand Jurgens' footnote.
I do not see that , despite your efforts to seemingly correct his understanding of the Greek. He is not referring to a translation that says "transmutation," but simply says that the "change of which our blood and flesh is nourished (20), is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnate Jesus," is that “The change referred to here is the change which takes place when the food we eat is assimilated and becomes part of our own body.”
Regardless, Scripture is determinative of Truth, not some post apostolic men who erred in other things, and whom Rome even judges more than theey judge her. Catholic Real Presence theology is definitely wrong and delusional.
And thus you would have the entire body of Christians forget the truth for 1500 years until a minority of believers rediscovered the truth. And are we to believe that the truth was so completely forgotten at such an early date that there is no record of a protest against it.?
Rather, we have the protest in Scripture which Rome is at variance at. Again, you would have a church with NT pastors being titled 'priests" (usually under mandated celibacy) since their primary function is dispensing bread and wine they turned into human flesh and blood in order for souls to obtain spiritual and eternal life, which ritual was the source and summit of their faith, around which all else revolved. Thus it is RCs who believe the invisible church is the one true church, as this church is simply not seen in Scripture!
In addition, we see only a small percentage of what CFs are estimated to have written, yet it is evident that men choose erroneous understandings and traditions which took upon a life of their own. The Catholic RP was just one among other demonstrably false teachings (though not precluding salvation), and a arrogant and increasingly corrupt and immoral Roman church which finally required a split. Which context most RCs are ignorant of.
No, this is the literal understanding of Scripture.
Mere assertion, while if the absolute imperative requirement of Jn. 6:53,54 is literal, then no Prot can be saved who denies the RP, contrary to modern Rome (if not ancient).
The authority of which Scripture? The gospel message is something that goes beyond the Old Testament, being a new revelation by God. In cannot be the New Testament since the authority of the apostles predates their writings.
Irrelevant, as explained, so why are you even trying this again? What was written is shown to be the supreme standard from the beginning of its writing, to which further conflative and complementary writings were established by and added to. .
No, the Church, having been established by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles, was active and alive before the writing of the New Testament. The writings of the New Testament were founded upon the proclamation of the Church, not the other way around.
Rather, reasserting a refuted polemic will not make something true for Rome or for you. It remains that the authority of an itinerant Preacher and His motley group of disciples was not established by those who sat in the seat of Moses, or by mail-order ordination, but as said, it was established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, and thus the church. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
No, it is you who have it backwards. The Church finds its beginnings at Pentecost, before the writings of the New Testament.
Is this what devotion to Rome does to a otherwise good mind? Just ignore most of the Bible as being the foundation for Pentecost (which is where that also is ordained, and the pouring out of the Spirit and for the church, of writings Peter thus references in Acts 2, so that instead you can to try to support a church which imagines an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for valid assurance of Truth and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith.
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is the assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God. Which fallacious premise renders her claims to be the one true church to be fallacious as unScriptural.
The more this is argued against, then the more the error of Rome has been exposed. Arguments for her are arguments against her.
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.