The Primacy of Peter

V for Victory ^ | August 3, 2012

[NYer]

Just a few days ago, I acquired my own copy of a book I remember from childhood (not, alas, from Catholic school): the silver jubilee edition of My Catholic Faith, by Bishop Louis Laravoire Morrow, S.T.D. (My Mission House, Kenosha, Wisconsin, 1961).  Bishop Morrow served as the Bishop of the Diocese of Krishnagar, India, from 1939 to 1969; his book originally came out in 1936.  My Catholic Faith is a concise summary of the Faith and is divided into three parts: What to Believe; What to Do; and Means of Grace.  This worthy book unfortunately appears no longer to be in print, and was one of the many treasures swept out into the sea of oblivion by the flood of modernism that followed Vatican II.  Sadly, many of the devotions, ceremonies and liturgical accoutrements that it describes were also swept away and are now foreign to most Latin Rite Catholics; but, thanks to our current Holy Father, they are beginning to come back.  If you can find a copy on Amazon or from a used book seller, My Catholic Faith is a good place to learn about and rekindle a love for these once-common features of Catholic life.

One striking lesson in My Catholic Faith is Lesson No. 50: The Primacy of Peter.  One of the defining characteristics of Protestantism is the rejection of this doctrine; and unfortunately, it is now all but rejected by many Catholics.  Many in the pews have been raised to view the Pope as a semi-comical figure in a white dress and fancy headgear who leads a sheltered life, ignorant of the concerns of everyday people, and just wants to ruin everybody's fun.  Even many priests and bishops do not seem to see the need of obeying the Pope in the exercise of his rightful authority, as the response in some quarters to Summorum Pontificum clearly demonstrates.  But here Bishop Morrow brings us up short.  "The true test of loyalty to Christ," he says, "is not only to believe in Him and worship Him, but to honor and obey the representatives He has chosen.  Our Lord chose St. Peter as His Vicar.  It is rebellion against Christ to say to Him: 'I will worship You, but I will not recognize Your representative.'  This is what Christians do, who deny the authority of the successor of Peter."

How do we know that Christ has a Vicar on earth, and that the Vicar is Peter?  The good bishop gives us his point-by-point analysis:

-- Jesus changed the name of Simon to Peter after his confession of faith at Caesarea Philippi.  "Peter" means "Rock," signifying Peter's role as the foundation of the Church.

-- Jesus gave to Peter, and to no other Apostle, the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.  Keys are a sign of authority.

-- After the Resurrection, on the Lake of Gennesareth, Jesus asked Peter three times  if Peter loved Him, and three times told Peter to feed His lambs and His sheep.  The "lambs" are the laity; the "sheep" are the clergy who nourish the lambs.  By this Jesus signified the entire flock.  He gave to no other Apostle the responsibility of feeding His entire flock.

-- Jesus gave Peter a new name; chose him as a companion on the most solemn occasions; appeared to him first among all the Apostles after the Resurrection.  These marks of distinction were conferred on no other Apostle.

-- Jesus is the Invisible Head of His Church, but, like any other society, the Church needs a visible head; St. Peter was chosen to be the visible head of the Church to take Christ's place among men.

-- Peter actually exercised his primacy.

1. Peter's name always comes first in the list of Apostles, just as the name of the Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus, always comes last.  St. Matthew calls him the first of the Apostles (Matthew 10:2).  He was not the first in age (his brother Andrew was older) nor in election (here again, Andrew preceded him), so he must have been first in authority.

2. It was on Peter's advice that the Apostles chose a replacement for Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:21-26).

3. Peter preached the first sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-36).

4. Peter admitted the first converts from both Judaism and Paganism, shattering the taboo against Jews and pagans consorting with one another (Acts 2:38-41; 10:5 et seq.).

5. Peter worked the first miracle by curing a man lame from birth (Acts 3:6-8).

6. Peter meted out the first punishment, against the cheaters Ananias and Sapphira, who fell down dead at his rebuke (Acts 5:1-6).

7. Peter cast out the heretic, Simon Magus, who wanted to buy the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:19-20).

8. Peter made the first visitation of the churches (Acts 9:31-32).

9. At the first ecclesiastical council in Jerusalem, after much debate, all submitted to the judgment of Peter (Acts 15:7-12).

10. St. Paul presented himself to Peter after his conversion (Gal.1:18).

11. As the See of Peter, the Church of Rome ranked highest among the early churches established by the Apostles.

And, of course, the successors of Peter down to this day succeed to his primacy and his authority.  

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.  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.  

Matthew 16:18-19 

UPDATE: A commenter has just drawn my attention to the fact that My Catholic Faith is indeed back in print, under the auspices of Angelus Press.

[NYer]

We have seen the untold damage done by the heretical offshoots with over 30,000 non-Catholic denominations.

Luther opened Pandora's box when he nailed his 95 theses to the doors of the church in Wittenberg. Even more disturbing, however, is how christians evangelize other christians. Last week, I received a phone call from a catholic convert to Jehovah's Witnesses. It began with a simple approach, she wanted to send me a "prayer tract" to read during tough times. I explained that I was a practicing catholic. She persisted, indicating this was a small prayer from Psalms. In probing deeper, that is when I learned about her disagreement with the Catholic Church. I invited her to come home to the Eucharist. She responded by proselytizng even more - the fallacy of the Trinity, saying Peter was never in Rome, et al.

I explained that scripture prohibits her from evangelizing christians. Now it was her turn to balk.

Thus I aspire to proclaim the gospel not where Christ has already been named, so that I do not build on another's foundation, but as it is written: "Those who have never been told of him shall see, and those who have never heard of him shall understand."
Romans 15:20-21

I suggested she try to promote her tracts with local area muslims. I reminded her that once baptized a catholic, she remained catholic and was welcome to return. The call caught me off guard and the conversation burned a hole in my heart. How can anyone walk away from Christ, present in the Eucharist and embrace a cult. I have been praying for her ever since.

[RaisingCain]

Jehovah’s Witnesses are a religious cult who deny that Jesus Christ is God. Other than that, they agree with Catholicism on power, control and salvation through the works of the law.

[Natural Law]

"No offense taken, but the Catholic Church at the time was quite clear that they objected to commoners reading vernacular translations."

When we deal in partial truths it is important that it is not done with an intent to deceive. While it is indeed true that some vernacular translations were banned to all but the clergy it was not a blanket prohibition. The Church, with its teaching authority mandate, had a duty to ensure that all vernacular translations were accurate and were published without the heretical margin notes that were supporting many heretical movements of the day. Compounding this was the very real situation where there were no written languages for the many, many languages and dialects spoken across Europe and no one literate in them to benefit from a vernacular language had there been a suitable vernacular Bible available.

Lastly, the notion that vernacular Bibles were a Protestant invention or a product of the Reformation is preposterous. Only the presumption that anyone or everyone can assume the authority to accurately interpret and translate the Bible is.

Peace be with you

[Rashputin]

Folks who are their own personal priesthood, final authority in all matters of interpretation, and all around reviser and redefiner of all things Biblical, typically use the Lego Block Method of Scripture Interpretation in order to twist Scripture to suit themselves, usually by taking random verses and even portions of verses to string together into whatever suits them at the moment. Such folks, for example, have no problem "proving" that queers should be ordained, queers should be allowed to marry one another, or that there should be no hierarchy or priesthood. As everyone knows, there are people who find all of those things and many more in Scripture because that's what they want to find there.

Looking at the heresy of Core, we find the following in the New Testament which warns:

Jude 1:11 Woe unto them, for they have gone in the way of Cain: and after the error of Balaam they have for reward poured out themselves, and have perished in the contradiction of Core.

Abortion by contraception most certainly qualifies as the way of Cain, and the error of Balaam is pharmacia, sexual infidelity, sexual immorality, sacrifices to idols, and unnatural sexual behavior. The vast majority of US Protestants (probably in other countries as well) either ignore or accept as harmless all but a few drugs drugs, remarriage after divorce, and contraception, they also at least tacitly accept homosexuality, the health wealth and prosperity gospel to some degree if not completely. Whether the majority of folks want to look at reality or not, that means the vast majority of Protestants in this country cover all the bases of Balaam with some taking exception to one or two but never all of the Balaam idolitry. As for the contradiction of Core, of course, it's exactly what Luther and all Protestants preach, described here:

Numbers 16:1 And behold Core the son of Isaar, the son of Caath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiron the sons of Eliab, and Hon the son of Pheleth of the children of Ruben,
Numbers 16:2 Rose up against Moses, and with them two hundred and fifty others of the children of Israel, leading men of the synagogue, and who in the time of assembly were called by name.
Numbers 16:3 And when they had stood up against Moses and Aaron, they said: Let it be enough for you, that all the multitude consisteth of holy ones, and the Lord is among them: Why lift you up yourselves above the people of the Lord?

It's crystal clear, then, that the heresy is for Core to claim that all are holy and since all are holy all are the same as priests, leading naturally to the heresy itself which is that there should be no priesthood over the people but each person is sufficient unto themselves. Along with ignoring the command to obey your prelates, all Protestants ignore the heresy of Core by virtue of the fact that it is intrinsic to all Protestantism.

Along with a description of the heresy, naturally we're told what the proper response to those who follow and teach such a heresy should be, here:

Numbers 16:26 He said to the multitude: Depart from the tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest you be involved in their sins.

We're also told the proper response to those who have been told the truth multiple times and refuse to accept it:

Matthew 7:6 Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you.

and here:

Galatians 1:9 If any one preach to you a gospel besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.

Redefining words and reinterpreting clear written sentences to mean something the original author never intended qualifies as preaching another gospel, by the way. For example, if anyone were to look at a verse originally written in a language with a single word for any and all forms of "rock", then redefine one instance of the word "rock" in that sentence to derive a meaning that better suits them, they would without any doubt be preaching another gospel. Likewise with ignoring the clear teaching of Scripture with regard to the heresy of Core, the sin of contraception, and a great many other things intrinsic to Protestantism.

Therefore, once they've been told and it's obvious that they've hardened their heart against the Holy Spirit, anathema.

Have a nice day

[RaisingCain]

I quickly read through that entire diatribe and did not see even one sentence defending your position or acknowledging the scriptures I provided. It was all just a bundle of assertions with no real usefulness.

[Natural Law]

"Not understanding the need doesn’t make it go away, NL."

I appreciate the personal need, but there is no ecclesial need. Catholics accept both Scripture and the Sacred Tradition as co-equal sources of Revealed Truth. It is from this Deposit of faith that our doctrines and dogmas are derived.

I also appreciate the different perspectives we have with respect to the role of Scripture in our beliefs. What seems to be so very hard for all to accept is that, regardless of denomination, with few exceptions those who frequent the Religion Forum are people of significant faith. We are all called to God and Faith is the human response to that call.

Faith is, first and foremost, an act of the will. In cooperation with Grace, we must choose to believe. What you may call your "Born Again" experience we Catholics call a conversion. For us it is not just a one and done experience, it the beginning of a process we call conversion. For most it is a life long experience filled with many subsequent highs and a few lows. Faith is the belief in things not known and not knowable and the acceptance of things not understood or even understandable. Understanding is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit and as St. Paul reminds us not all will receive this gift or receive it in equal measures. Where we lack this understanding we, in faith look to our Church and its Traditions, Magisterium, and the collective body of knowledge and opinions of those who came before us. Rather than bicker over the errors we perceive in each other, lets us rejoice in the Faith we share.

Thank you for your service. Peace be with you

[Rashputin]

I love folks who "scan" through what something to see if what they want to be there is there and then just derive whatever what want from what they read. Those folks handle all Scripture exactly the same way. They scan through it and when they don't find what they want they start revising, reinterpreting, and stringing random verses together in order to get back to their preconception and agenda.

I bet folks like that make fine priests for themselves, particularly when they can't even understand and accept that Christ is God Almighty and works totally outside of and apart from time.

Our sacrifice is ongoing because He is alive and interceding for us. Christ IS the sacrifice and therefore the sacrifice is ongoing, period. This moment, every moment, an everlasting sacrifice we partake of through the Eucharist. Of course, some people may believe that Christ is no longer alive, or isn't in heaven, or isn't constantly interceding for us, isn't God Almighty, or even that Christ lied when He said "This is my body". But, hey, such folks are by definition not Christian since they deny the diety of Christ.

[Mr Rogers]

“The Church, with its teaching authority mandate, had a duty to ensure that all vernacular translations were accurate and were published without the heretical margin notes that were supporting many heretical movements of the day.”

Sorry, but this simply is not true. The first translation of the NT made by Tyndale was very accurate, and had no notes. The picture I posted was a photocopy of an original.

The prohibitions were against commoners reading vernacular translations. A wealthy person could get Wycliffe’s translation approved, but the same pages in the hand of a commoner was unacceptable.

The argument the Catholic Church made was that commoners couldn’t understand the subtlety of scripture, and thus needed the priest to tell them what it meant. It was a matter of policy.

“Compounding this was the very real situation where there were no written languages for the many, many languages and dialects spoken across Europe and no one literate in them to benefit from a vernacular language had there been a suitable vernacular Bible available.”

Odd. That didn’t stop Luther or Tyndale. They made it happen because they WANTED to, and they had a HUGE market.

[RaisingCain]

“I love folks who “scan” through what something to see if what they want to be there is there and then just derive whatever what want from what they read. “

---

Good thing the word “scan” didn’t appear in my post, which must mean that you “scanned” my post as opposed to quickly reading it.

“I bet folks like that make fine priests for themselves, particularly when they can’t even understand and accept that Christ is God Almighty and works totally outside of and apart from time.”

---

So your response to the concept of Christ being God almighty who works totally outside of and apart from time is to claim that there is a special class of Priests in our time, which normal Christians are not a member of unless they are approved by Romanism?

The scripture makes no special distinction. We are all referred to as “lively stones” and a “holy priesthood” as a result of our being a part of Christ’s body. Are Priests a part of God’s body and we are not?

Rev 1:5-6 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, (6) And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

It does not say “will make us” or “has made us in a different dimension of time” Kings and Priests, it says “hath made us” just as surely as he hath “washed us from our sins in his own blood.”

Gal_2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Christ lives in us. The righteousness we have by GRACE through FAITH has made us worthy to be a part of His body. And is the body of Christ not Holy?

Rom 8:7-17 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. (8) So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. (9) But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. (10) And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. (11) But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. (12) Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. (13) For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. (14) For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. (15) For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. (16) The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: (17) And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

We are children of God. Heirs to God that we may be Kings and Priests in His sight. We need ask of no one to mediate between us and God. We are a Holy Priesthood, and Christ is our High Priest, whom we can go to directly without any fear. We can walk into the Holy of Holies, not because of our own worthiness, but because of the worthiness of Christ who has won us to Him.

This is the same argument Peter makes in the other scripture I quoted, calling us “lively stones” (just as he is called a Rock) in the building of which Christ is the Chief Cornerstone, a “royal priesthood” unto God.

“Our sacrifice is ongoing because He is alive and interceding for us. Christ IS the sacrifice and therefore the sacrifice is ongoing, period. This moment, every moment, an everlasting sacrifice we partake of through the Eucharist. Of course, some people may believe that Christ is no longer alive, or isn’t in heaven, or isn’t constantly interceding for us, isn’t God Almighty, or even that Christ lied when He said “This is my body”. But, hey, such folks are by definition not Christian since they deny the diety of Christ.”

---

The scripture does not say that the Eucharist is the everlasting ongoing “final” sacrifice that we relive every Sunday in a Roman Church in order to attain salvation. It says this:

Luk_22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

Do it in remembrance of me. There is no scripture evidence that Christ is sacrificed every time a Roman Priest consecrates a wafer and some wine, or even that it is for anything more than a “remembrance” of the one and only sacrifice Christ gave on that cross.

Heb 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

FOR THIS HE DID ONCE!

[Rashputin]

What a sophpmoric totally distorted diatribe clearly penned by someone without the ability to do anything other than stare at their own naval and repeatedly chant their misunderstandings and refusals to accept Christ.

[Mr Rogers]

“Again and again you keep ignoring the pointedly and indisputably strong scriptural and traditional bases of the rebuttal to your arguments made by the Augustinian Club and then conclude that this is a “personal “ attack. No, it is not when you engage in theological arguments and then side step the rebuttal.”

I was calling this comment personal:

“If you are unable to appreciate the depth of these arguments just say so. Why not just admit that the explanations are well beyond your intellectual grasp.”

Frankly, the club you cite has its facts wrong. No, I do not read an e-bbok which doesn’t ever address my arguments. Nor do I wish to write from my personal knowledge an e-book in reply. I’ve spent hundreds of posts over the years discussing the Eucharist, Priests, the prohibition on vernacular translations, etc.

I refuse to take 8 hours to write out a point-by-point rejection of a cut & paste. If you have a specific objection to anything I wrote, please make it and I will respond.

” Against the flow of a 2000 year plus tradition of interpretation by some of the most illustrious scholars and early Church fathers, and converts to Catholicism like the brilliant minds of GK Chesterton and Cardinal St. Thomas Newman, you make sophomoric contrary claims and hold out your exegetical views as pre-eminent.”

My arguments are not sophomoric. I’m sorry your great minds and thinkers of incredible wisdom have been unable to show any reference to Christian Priests in the New Testament, nor explain away the book of Hebrews. With such brilliant minds, they ought to be able to show some reference to Purgatory, which, if true, would be a very powerful incentive to moral living. Yet there is none in the Old or New, and even the Apocrypha only has one slanting verse sort of indicating that maybe such a thing could exist.

Is the Apocrypha authoritative for doctrine? If not, the Paul says it isn’t scripture, but the Council of Trent refused to discuss the argument. It chose to leave it an open question, which in turn opens questions about its understanding of what is meant by scripture.

[RaisingCain]

“What a sophpmoric totally distorted diatribe clearly penned by someone without the ability to do anything other than stare at their own naval and repeatedly chant their misunderstandings and refusals to accept Christ.”

---

This coming from the guy who has not once even acknowledged the existence of these scriptures, and instead asserts over and over again that I am a heretic since I will not deny them as you do.

I’ll take Jesus Christ at His word without the Roman filter:

Joh 11:25-26 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: (26) And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

[Rashputin]

for anything other than the ignorant, juvenile, mind, this is straight forward.

Christ is God incarnate. The Scripture is the Word of God. The Word of God says we're to obey our prelates. People who deny that we should have prelates deny the Word of God. Christ is called The Word, ergo, those who deny the Word of God deny Christ.

Furthermore, those who deny Christ cannot participate in the Eucharist, and the Word of God says those who do not partake of the Eucharist have no life in them. Those with no life in them cannot rightly divide His Word and therefore are by definition preaching another gospel when they interpret Scripture to suit their own preconceptions. Those who preach another gospel are anathema. Answering the vain ramblings of swine would be going contrary to Scripture which says not to throw pearls before swine.

have a nice

[Steelfish]

If only you had taken the time to carefully read my post from the Augustine Club (what you derogatorily term as “cut and paste”) you would have found the explanation to the Catholic belief in purgatory. Beside, the great minds of Augustine, Aquinas, Benedict XVI, and to say nothing of the illustrious pantheon of intellectuals who have studied Church history and doctrine and made deliberate conversions to Catholicism including a former Chief Rabbi of Rome, considered a pre-eminent intellectual of his time, and of course the likes of literary giants like GK Chesterton and now Cardinal (St.) Henry Newman have concluded on the primacy of Peter and the Catholic Church. The rest are all wild offshoots of the bark of the one True, Catholic, Holy, and Apostolic Church as scripture, tradition, and revelation support.

Part of your problem is the myopic view that infects all of Protestantism that scripture alone interpreted of course by the pastors of some 30,000 non-CATHOLIC Christian denominations including the nearby neighborhood four-square church and individuals like yourself who claim have cottoned onto the “definite” interpretation of sacred text.

But here’s the part of the excerpt from the Augustine Club post reproduced below that you apparently did not read and hence you keep repeating your queries.
_________________________________________________________________________

Why do Catholics believe in a place between Heaven and Hell called Purgatory? Where is Purgatory mentioned in the Bible?

The main body of Christians have always believed in the existence of a place between Heaven and Hell where souls go to be punished for lesser sins and to repay the debt of temporal punishment for sins which have been forgiven. Even after Moses was forgiven by God, he was still punished for his sin. (2 Kg. or 2 Sam. 12:13-14).

The primitive Church Fathers regarded the doctrine of Purgatory as one of the basic tenets of the Christian faith. St. Augustine, one of the greatest doctors of the Church, said the doctrine of Purgatory ``has been received from the Fathers and it is observed by the Universal Church.’’ True, the word ``Purgatory’’ does not appear in the Bible, but a place where lesser sins are purged away and the soul is saved ``yet so as by fire,’’ is mentioned. (1 Cor. 3:15).

Also, the Bible distinguishes between those who enter Heaven straightaway, calling them ``the church of the firstborn’’ (Heb. 12:23), and those who enter after having undergone a purgation, calling them ``the spirits of the just made perfect.’’ (Heb. 12:23). Christ Himself stated: ``Amen I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence till thou repay the last farthing.’’ (Matt. 5 :26). And: ``Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment.’’ (Matt. 12:36). These are obviously references to Purgatory.

Further, the Second Book of Machabees (which was dropped from the Scriptures by the Protestant Reformers) says: ``It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.’’ (2 Mach. 12:46).

Ancient Christian tomb inscriptions from the second and third centuries frequently contain an appeal for prayers for the dead. In fact, the custom of praying for the dead—which is meaningless if there is no Purgatory—was universal among Christians for the fifteen centuries preceding the Protestant Reformation.

Furthermore, ordinary justice calls for a place of purgation between Heaven and Hell. Take our own courts of justice, for example. For major crimes a person is executed or sentenced to life imprisonment (Hell); for minor crimes a person is sentenced to temporary imprisonment for punishment and rehabilitation (Purgatory); for no crime at all a person is rewarded with the blessing of free citizenship (Heaven). If a thief steals some money, then regrets his deed and asks the victim for forgiveness, it is quite just for the victim to forgive him yet still insist on restitution.

God, who is infinitely just, insists on holy restitution. This is made either in this life, by doing penance (Matt. 3:2; Luke 3:8, 13:3; Apoc. 3:2-3, 19), or in Purgatory .

Also, what Christian is there who, despite his faith in Christ and his sincere attempts to be Christlike, does not find sin and worldliness still in his heart? ``For in many things we all offend.’’ (James 3:2). Yet ``there shall not enter into it [the new Jerusalem, Heaven] anything defiled.’’ (Apoc. or Rev. 21:27).

In Purgatory the soul is mercifully purified of all stain; there God carries out the work of spiritual purification which most Christians neglected and resisted on earth. It is important to remember that Catholics do not believe that Christ simply covers over their sinful souls, like covering a manure heap with a blanket of snow (Martin Luther’s description of God’s forgiveness).

Rather, Christ insists that we be truly holy and sinless to the core of our souls. ``Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.’’ (Matt. 5:48). This growth in sinlessness—in Christian virtue and holiness—is of course the work of an entire lifetime (and is possible only through the grace of God). With many this cleansing is completed only in Purgatory. If there is no Purgatory, but only Heaven for the perfect and Hell for the imperfect, then the vast majority of us are hoping in vain for life eternal in Heaven.

[RaisingCain]

“Christ is God incarnate.”

---

Duh

“The Scripture is the Word of God.”

---

I’ll add Roman tradition is not the word of God.

“The Word of God says we’re to obey our prelates.”

---

Can you cite the scripture where it says we are to obey the Pope, who is about 2,000 years removed from Peter and utterly contradicts the Bible?

“Furthermore, those who deny Christ cannot participate in the Eucharist, and the Word of God says those who do not partake of the Eucharist have no life in them. “

---

You are putting works ahead of salvation. An act that is to be done “as a remembrance of Me” cannot possibly be a spiritual act that determines your salvation. Salvation is a spiritual act, achieved by grace through faith alone, not through any activity of your own. That is why Cornelius and his family were filled with the Holy Spirit the moment they believed in Christ even before they were baptized, gone through confession with a “priest”, and participated in Roman traditions which, at that time, did not even exist.

[Mr Rogers]

“but a place where lesser sins are purged away and the soul is saved ``yet so as by fire,’’ is mentioned. (1 Cor. 3:15).”

Nope. Here is what 1 Cor 3 actually SAYS:

9 In this work, we work with God, and that means that you are a field under God’s cultivation, or, if you like, a house being built to his plan.

10-15 I, like an architect who knows his job, by the grace God has given me, lay the foundation; someone else builds upon it. I only say this, let the builder be careful how he builds! The foundation is laid already, and no one can lay another, for it is Jesus Christ himself. But any man who builds on the foundation using as his material gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay or stubble, must know that each man’s work will one day be shown for what it is. The day will show it plainly enough, for the day will arise in a blaze of fire, and that fire will prove the nature of each man’s work. If the work that the man has built upon the foundation will stand this test, he will be rewarded. But if a man’s work be destroyed under the test, he loses it all. He personally will be safe, though rather like a man rescued from a fire.

Note Paul is discussing MINISTRY - building up Christians. Those who do well, will receive honor from God. Those who do not will still go to heaven, but they will not receive the reward a more diligent man receives.

It has nothing to do with paying a penalty for sin. That was paid in full by Jesus Christ:

“3-5 Thank God, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, that in his great mercy we men have been born again into a life full of hope, through Christ’s rising again from the dead! You can now hope for a perfect inheritance beyond the reach of change and decay, “reserved” in Heaven for you. And in the meantime you are guarded by the power of God operating through your faith, till you enter fully into the salvation which is all ready for the denouement of the last day.” - Peter

Your extract says “ those who enter after having undergone a purgation, calling them ``the spirits of the just made perfect.’’ (Heb. 12:23).”

Actually, Heb 12 says “You have drawn near to God, the judge of all, to the souls of good men made perfect, and to Jesus, mediator of a new agreement, to the cleansing of blood which tells a better story than the age-old sacrifice of Abel.”

Remember, 2 chapters earlier he writes, “11-16 Every human priest stands day by day performing his religious duties and offering time after time the same sacrifices—which can never actually remove sins. But this man, after offering one sacrifice for sins for ever, took his seat at God’s right hand, from that time offering no more sacrifice, but waiting until “his enemies be made his footstool”. For by virtue of that one offering he has perfected for all time every one whom he makes holy. The Holy Spirit himself endorses this truth for us, when he says, first: ‘This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them’.

17 And then, he adds, ‘Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more’.

18 Where God grants remission of sin there can be no question of making further atonement.”

Let me repeat for emphasis:

“For by virtue of that one offering he has perfected for all time every one whom he makes holy...And then, he adds, ‘Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more’. Where God grants remission of sin there can be no question of making further atonement.”

God grants remission of sins based on the single sacrifice of Christ, and He promises ‘Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more’.

Your extract claims “Furthermore, ordinary justice calls for a place of purgation between Heaven and Hell.”

But the gift of God in Jesus Christ is NOT ordinary justice! There is NOTHING ordinary about the Gospel!

“So by virtue of the blood of Jesus, you and I, my brothers, may now have courage to enter the holy of holies by way of the one who died and is yet alive, who has made for us a holy means of entry by himself passing through the curtain, that is, his own human nature. Further, since we have a great High Priest set over the household of God, let us draw near with true hearts and fullest confidence, knowing that our inmost souls have been purified by the sprinkling of his blood just as our bodies are cleansed by the washing of clean water. In this confidence let us hold on to the hope that we profess without the slightest hesitation—for he is utterly dependable—and let us think of one another and how we can encourage each other to love and do good deeds.”

I could go on, but why? I’m just quoting the word of God, and what is that compared to “the great minds of Augustine, Aquinas, Benedict XVI, and to say nothing of the illustrious pantheon of intellectuals who have studied Church history and doctrine and made deliberate conversions to Catholicism including a former Chief Rabbi of Rome, considered a pre-eminent intellectual of his time, and of course the likes of literary giants like GK Chesterton and now Cardinal (St.) Henry Newman”...

[Steelfish]

Conveniently you say you are “quoting” the word of God when indeed you are making an interpretation that is at odds with the early Church fathers who were very well versed in the very texts you quote. The whole idea of the primacy of St. Peter and the Church which this thread is all about is that we don’t end up with a Tower of Babel set of interpretations where each one is a “Church” unto himself/herself. Just ask the Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Baptists, Scottish Reformed Church, Wesleyites, Calvinists and the list goes on endlessly not to mention the televangelists, the Rev. Wrights, Rev. Sharptons, where each denomination not unlike yourself claim to make authoritative interpretation of Sacred Scripture.

[Rashputin]

From the mouth of Christ Himself,
Luke 22:19 Do this in remembrance of me.

The Greek word for "remembrance," "anamnesis," refers to a memorial SACRIFICE. Therefore we once again see how those who interpret Scripture for themselves to suit their personal preconceptions and agenda are obviously incapable of understanding His Word because they have no life in them. They can't possibly correctly interpret His Word until they abandon the worship of their own, Most High and Holy Self, stop insisting that their favorite falsehood is the truth, take up their cross and follow Christ.

It's always interesting to think about what spirit people who interpret Scripture for themselves must really be listening to when they pretend to know what they're saying as they play their Lego Block games with Scripture but end up clearly denying Christ by denying His Word.

have a nice day

[RaisingCain]

“The Greek word for “remembrance,” “anamnesis,” refers to a memorial SACRIFICE. Therefore we once again see how those who interpret Scripture for themselves to suit their personal preconceptions and agenda are obviously incapable of understanding His Word because they have no life in them. They can’t possibly correctly interpret His Word until they abandon the worship of their own, Most High and Holy Self, stop insisting that their favorite falsehood is the truth, take up their cross and follow Christ.”

---

I checked several Greek Lexicons just now, and none of them say that anamnesis means “sacrifice.” It means:

Definition
a remembering, recollection

“means of remembering, remembrance, reminder” (Friberg)
“reminder, remembrance” (Barclay-Newman)
“reminder” (Louw-Nida)
“a remembering, recollection” (Thayer)
“calling to mind, reminiscence, remembrance” (Lust-Eynikel-Hauspie)
“reminder; remembrance, memory” (Gingrich)

It’s also the name of a Socratic theory that the soul is eternal and is only in the process of “relearning” everything it had once forgotten, which had been forgotten in the shock of child birth.

I don’t think Socrates was Catholic and was referring to the Eucharist.

Another word, Anamimnesko, a verb form, is also translated for “remembering.” It is used when Peter remembered Christ’s words that he would deny Christ three times.

I don’t think Peter was doing a memorial sacrifice just then.

Now, could the word mean “Remembering...” the sacrifice of Christ? Yup, that’s exactly what it means. But it does not contain that meaning in and of itself.

But I actually have access to a far superior Eucharist than you could ever possess. Want to know how I got it?

Simple:

Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

I simply believe in Him, and I never hunger. I believe in Him, and I never again shall thirst.

The Papists, as usual, turn everything that is spiritual into something utterly fleshy.

[NYer]

Mr Rogers, you reference 1 Cor 3:15: He personally will be safe, though rather like a man rescued from a fire.

The phrase for "suffer loss" in the Greek is "zemiothesetai." The root word is "zemioo" which also refers to punishment. The construction “zemiothesetai” is used in Ex. 21:22 and Prov. 19:19 which refers to punishment (from the Hebrew “anash” meaning “punish” or “penalty”). Hence, this verse proves that there is an expiation of temporal punishment after our death, but the person is still saved. This cannot mean heaven (there is no punishment in heaven) and this cannot mean hell (the possibility of expiation no longer exists and the person is not saved).

Further, Paul writes “he himself will be saved, "but only" (or “yet so”) as through fire.” “He will be saved” in the Greek is “sothesetai” (which means eternal salvation). The phrase "but only" (or “yet so”) in the Greek is "houtos" which means "in the same manner." This means that man is both eternally rewarded and eternally saved in the same manner by fire.