Posted on 05/03/2008 4:38:34 PM PDT by NYer
What are the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven???
I agree completely and that is a definition of UNITED. When a man and woman are UNITED in marriage, their MARRIAGE is a union, it DOES NOT mean that they are the same person.
Perhaps if you had not concatenated the verse you would understand better.
Do either of those verses involve an instruction from Christ to an individual?
Or are they both general instructions from apostles?
Do you want to be alone?
I don't see the need for others here when you are setting yourself up as the representative for both sides of the debate.
The Cathechism does not teach that "united" means one becomes a god, or a co-savior, or any of the garbage you say.
Please respect the right of Catholics to define their faith.
Never said that. Its the CATHOLIC view of this verse that is non-biblical and mythical. There is nothing in the Keys of the Kingdom that apply to Popes or the Catholic Church. It was applied to Peter and Peter ALONE.
"....nothing in the exegesis, leads one to conclude that the office was meant for anyone other than the apostle Peter. The findings have indicated no real basis to assume that the text is outlining the basis for a succession of supreme pontiffs who claim their authority from Peter."
"This is important because the Catholic Church maintains that the institution of the papacy is of divine, not human, origin. Matt 16:18 is used to substantiate this. If this claim is true, then one would certainly expect to find the “doctors of the church” referring to the institution of the papacy and linking it to this verse. For the most part, though, (with the exception of Jerome and the bishops of Rome), such references are not present in the writings of the fathers. Yes, it is true that Rome possessed a position of pre-eminence in the early Church; no historian or theologian would dispute this. However, the question is whether the primacy promised to Peter in Matt 16:17-19 and actually exercised by him is to be transferred to bishops of the Roman Church." "Upon This Rock: An Exegetical and Patristic Examination of Matthew 16:18
Yep, we don't complain about their crackers, grape juice and rattle snakes.
That is *not* true. Children learn the basics at a very early age.
You are saying that if a toddler knocks the gear shift out of place and the family car runs over his mother, that the toddler sinned, but it won't be held against him. That's just wrong.
A rather unfortunate example, as there is no intent in the action. It would not be a murder in that case, but a mere accident.
A better example would be one of covetousness:
A child purposefully takes a toy from the home of a playmate because he wants it for his own. That is sin, and he knows it to be so, as when he is caught at it he exhibits guilt.
Toddlers don't understand and their actions are not sinful. Sin is about the will, not the actions.
The example above proves my case, and it is from within my own house. The child I speak of was only 2 1/2 years old when he took my child's toy. When his parents forced it's return, he was fully guilt ridden and apologetic for his actions.
That instance holds all the prerequisites of sin. Children hold all the willfulness of their parents, but without the good sense of experience.
Then you don't get to determine that sola scriptura is not biblical.
A child is born and one minute later dies. Has this child "learned" right from wrong? Has this child committed any sin?
Let’s see: I can go with 1900 years of scholarship in the Church founded by Christ—the Catholic Church—and the plain words of Christ as laid out in the New Testament written and assembled by that Church, or I can go with Paster Brittany.
Hmmmm. What to do what to do.
Nonetheless, you recycle someone else's doubletalk:
Yes, it is true that Rome possessed a position of pre-eminence in the early Church; no historian or theologian would dispute this. However, the question is whether the primacy promised to Peter in Matt 16:17-19 and actually exercised by him is to be transferred to bishops of the Roman Church."
In other words, yes Rome was in charge and yes Peter was promised the keys, but we don't see how they relate.
It's willful blindness.
Apparently so. It is our choice to give in to the inner desires in a selfish way. A capacity that children lack.
I heartedly disagree. Children, especially newborns, have a great capacity for selfishness.
Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh
This may have escaped your pope, being single and all, but there is a spiritual truth in two being united becoming one...
I did not say you're not free to go on believing such error. Go right ahead. Sin boldly.
But if you insist I believe it, I will tell you how wrong you are.
Yes, but they retain separate personhoods.
Oh my.
If he knows it to be so (truly knows it and not just knows that Mom and Dad will be mad) then he is not the child we are talking about.
It is for this reason that I used the word (I try t carefully pick words) "infant."
If infants have no capacity for knowing and choosing and understanding the remifications, then they do not sin.
And the "all have sinned" Bible verse must allow exceptions and can not be used as a bludgedon to deny Mary her role.
That was the point.
A child is born, draws a single breath and dies. Where have the exhibited selfishness?
Ooooohhh...One of them there ten dollar words...
But what verse are you referring to??? I've posted a few...
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.