Posted on 04/16/2014 5:37:55 AM PDT by Salvation
Featured Term (selected at random:
ROSMINIANISM
A system of philosophy formulated by Antonio Rosmini-Serbati (1797-1855), founder of the Institute of Charity. Encouraged by Popes Pius VII, Gregory XVI, and Pius IX, he undertook a renewal of Italian philosophy, ostensibly following St. Thomas Aquinas. But the influence of Descartes, Kant, and Hegel shifted his thinking. He came to hold that the human mind is born with the idea of "being." In time it analyzes this basic idea to discover in it many other ideas, which are identical with those in the mind of God. Rosmini also taught that reason can explain the Trinity and that original sin is only a physical infection of the body. After his death forty of his propositions were condemned by Pope Leo XIII in 1887 and 1888.
All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission.
Peace,
SR
“So if you are ever willing to reopen discussion on the basis of substantive argument rather than an unending stream of personal attack”
Why would I want to discuss anything with a liar?
I have posted no stream of personal attack, unending or otherwise.
No lie. Anyone reading this sees your attacks for what they are. No one post that did not involve one form or another of ad hominem, and even now it continues, with a false accusation of lying. Suit yourself. You make my case for me. I wish it were not so. But the door remains open. It’s up to you.
Peace,
SR
. Amen. He is risen, as seen in His works.
Besides the other imaginative things you have exampled Scripture supporting, or even Rome teaching, this idea is further testimony of Catholics seeing all things leading to Rome. But such cultic devotion, and i which is what i sincerely see, further drives one away who left due to desire to follow the Christ or Scripture, and according to its Truth, not institutional security which leads to defending a church as a god.
The RC case is one in which,
1.. The Catholic makes a fallible human decision to render implicit assent of faith to an infallible magisterium.
2. As Rome cannot be wrong when she assuredly says she is right, Scripture history and tradition, only what she says they mean is authoritative and correct, and thus Scripture history and tradition must support her.
3. Appeal is thus made to Scripture history and tradition as supporting Rome as being the one true infallible church. Having promises of Divine guidance and presence necessitates infallible magisterium.
perpetual infallible magisterium. Historical descent as the steward of Scripture verifies she is this infallible magisterium.
4. This is held as needed as fallible human reasoning cannot provide assurance of Truth. Which explains away your rejection of the RC argument on the basis of evidence.
By such reasoning the church itself is rendered invalid, as this was not the basis upon which the NT began.
Defend as you must, but the fact is that no where was spiritual and eternal life obtained by physically eating food, much less a Christianized form of endocannibalism.
I Cor. 11 is not even referring to the elements being the body of the Lord, but the church, as explained here by God's grace, as the next chapter also focuses on, with the members in 1Cor. 11:17-34 "showing” the Lord's sacrificial death and resurrection by how they show this love and unity with Christ and each other in partaking of the communal meal (thus they were told they actually did not eat the Lord's supper due to their independence and selfishness in so doing, and "shame them that have not"), effectual recognizing each other as members for whom Christ died
And no matter how RCs try to deny it, they are inconsistent in holding Jn. 6:53,54 as literal while upholding V2 teaching that properly baptized Prots have the Holy Spirit in them and working thru them.
And they are are also inconsistent with the all-or-nothing hermeneutic they insist on here in denying other places where elements are called the blood of men or men are called bread, or as is the Word of God. Such as,
And David longed, and said, Oh that one would give me drink of the of the well of Beth–lehem, which is by the gate! And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew out of the well of Beth–lehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless but . And he said, Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives ? therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mighty men. (2 Samuel 23:15-17)
And or why will Catholic refuse* to believe the word of God literally when it clearly states that the Canaanites were “bread: “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us” (Num. 14:9)
And or that the Promised Land was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof.” (Num. 13:32)
And or when David said that his enemies came to “eat up my flesh.” (Ps. 27:2)
And or when Jeremiah proclaimed, Your words were found. and I ate them. and your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (Jer. 15:16)
And or when Ezekiel was told, “eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” (Ezek. 3:1)
And or when (in a phrase similar to the Lord’s supper) John is commanded, “Take the scroll ... Take it and eat it.” (Rev. 10:8-9 )
And since the Lord said that “As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me,” (John 6:57) and He said man should “live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God - quoting Scripture, and that His “meat was to do the will of Him that sent Me,” (Mt. 44:; Jn. 4:34) and that “the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life,” and that souls are only shown receiving life by believing the gospel message,” (Eph. 1:13) and the Word in general is what builds one up, (Acts 20:32) then why will not Catholic even allow that the Lord was referring to “eating” and “drinking” figuratively, as believing on and obeying the Word made flesh in order to gain life and live by Christ?
Especially since John abounds with figurative language and contrasting use of the temporal earthly physical to refer to the eternal heavenly spiritual.
Moreover, they are also inconsistent by rejecting other uses of figurative language in John, consistent with Jn. 6, as being literal,
• In John 1:29, Jesus is called “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” — but he does not have hoofs and literal physical wool.
• In John 2:19 Jesus is the temple of God: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” — but He is not made of literal stone.
• In John 3:14,15, Jesus is the likened to the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21) who must “be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal” (vs. 14, 15) — but He is not made of literal bronze.
• In John 4:14, Jesus provides living water, that “whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life” (v. 14) — but which was not literally consumed by mouth.
• In John 7:37 Jesus is the One who promises “He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water” — but this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive. (John 7:38)
• In Jn. 9:5 Jesus is “the Light of the world” — but who is not blocked by an umbrella.
• In John 10, Jesus is “the door of the sheep,”, and the good shepherd [who] giveth his life for the sheep”, “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” vs. 7, 10, 11) — but who again, is not literally an animal with cloven hoofs.
• In John 15, Jesus is the true vine — but who does not physically grow from the ground nor whose fruit is literally physically consumed.
*Don’t tell me cannibalism is forbidden, for a form of that is what Catholics engage in. hen the fearful Israelites exclaimed that the Promised Land was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof;”
Endocannibalism is most often an expression of veneration of the dead, or the pursuit of consuming some esoteric aspect of the person, like the deceased’s wisdom.
The Fore peoples of Papua New Guinea had a strongly codified type of endocannibalism as part of funerary rites. In this tribe, women and children played the largest role in cannibalism among deceased Fore males. - http://people.howstuffworks.com/cannibalism2.htm
Alpers and Lindenbaum’s research conclusively demonstrated that kuru [neurological disorder] spread easily and rapidly in the Fore people due to their endocannibalistic funeral practices, in which relatives consumed the bodies of the deceased to return the “life force” of the deceased to the hamlet, a Fore societal subunit. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_%28disease%29#Transmission
[There is a story of a Western business man in the last century who saw a Bible in the store of a client in New Guinea and remarked, “Don’t tell me you believe that nonsense!” The store owner calmly replied, “Sir, let assured you that if it were not for the Book which you called nonsense, my friends and I would be having you for dinner right now.”]
• you do not simply do not hold to salvation by works, but salvation via the Eucharist
Salvation comes by grace alone, through faith and works of self-denial done for no temporal reward in imitation of Christ. The Eucharist is a natural result of faith, as it is impossible to separate the faith in Jesus Christ and not do what He asked that does not require any sacrifice on our part.
At least you are consistent here with you the literal hermeneutic imposed upon Jn. 6:53,54, but are inconsistent with your own church. Again. And which issue was brought up again as you are basically avoiding it.
Prots cannot have spiritual life in them if rejecting the Catholic "Real Presence" yet V2 says they have the Holy Spirit, and JP2 called some of them formal saints. But it is not surprising that you interpret Lumen Gentium in such as way as to exclude such Prots as being born again and having eternal life, and their church as having Christ's Spirit as means of salvation.. But your take on it is just another example of how RCs can interpret their infallible interpreter (of course, not all RCs think Vatican Two was infallible).
See my previous post to Springfield Reformer; the Catholic reading is the only possible non-contradictory reading of John 6, the scene of the Last Supper, and 1 Corinthians 11.
I saw it and responded there, as it is simply another example of compelling Scripture to “inescapably” teach what it simply does not, and would be inconsistent with John and the rest of Scripture if it did. But which a faithful RC must assent to, and thus the leads back to the foundational issue i keep bringing up, that of your basis for assurance of Truth, which you are still not facing.
As said, Scriptural substantiation cannot be that real basis, as that would mean the evangelical means of assurance of Truth is correct, and we would not need an assuredly infallible magisterium. You can try to persuade us that this is needed, and that Rome is that magisterium , fulfilling texts that you see promising an assuredly infallible magisterium, and thus persuade us to make a fallible human decision to submit to it, but this simply is not Scriptural and the basis upon which the church began. As can be shown.
Surely we can't both be infallible on such important matters
So now you are claiming individual laity have the gift of infallibility, not just speak something that is assuredly true? Little popes indeed.
It also contradicts the concrete text regarding Peter vested with leadership, and of the bishops likewise in a position of authority and leadership.
There is no “also,” and you are incessantly reading your doctrine into the text. There is absolutely nothing in Jn. 14 about Peter or perpetuated leadership being promised assured infallibility, nor is that Scriptural necessary providing and for preservation of Truth, but which is an presumptuous invention of Rome. God has always preserved an elect remnant out of of the whole, and often preserved Truth by raising upon men from without the magisterium to reprove it.
Thus the church began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses, even though Israel was also given promises of Divine presence and preservation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Num. 23:19,23; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Mal. 3:6; Rm. 3:2; 9:4). And it began following a holy man in the desert who ate insects and an itinerant Preacher who reproved the magisterium by Scripture, and who established His truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power. As did the apostles and early 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.) - not the premise of a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium, regardless of Rome defining herself as having such. Under the Roman model, 1st c. souls should have submitted to the historical stewards of Scripture and recipients of the promises of Divine presence and preservation.
You threw away all the specific scripture that does not match the Protestant ecclesiology.
Rather, i showed how it did not support Rome, while you largely dismissed what i substantiated.
• it does not deny what i said, Scripture is not even determinative for an RC
It is determinative together with the patristic reading of it;
Also wrong, as it is only what Rome says Scripture and patristic writings teach that is determinative for RCs, and thus they compel Scripture as a servant to support Rome.
Why is it determinative only patristically?
Again, it simply is not for a RC, as Rome herself judges the “fathers” more than they judge here. Only what Rome says is determinative for RCs, and the premise of her assured infallibility is the basis for their assurance of Truth.
Because the scripture is the product of the work of the Fathers of the Church.
Wrong also, as regards the Roman church, as the Scriptures contradict her, while only the foundational manifest apostles and prophets are the “fathers of the NT church, versus the progressive Roman deformation.
the role of Peter and the bishops, the nature of the Eucharist, the inspired and infallible nature of the Catholic Church - the scripture is especially clear,
Rather, what is increasingly clear is that this is not substantiated, while the incessant recourse to assertive propaganda becomes even more exposed as spurious soliloquy the more it is repeated.
authority of Hell attacking the church
I put that there as that is what many RCs think,even if you reject them, or as possible, that the gates of hell not prevailing means the powers of Hell attacking but not overcoming. Yet Hell does attack the church, (1 Peter 5:8) often using organized churches to attack members of the body of Christ, and which affects its organized structure, if viable.
Christ breaks the gates of Hell and rescues men in bondage of sin, -- and He does it through His Church.
The body of Christ which includes Prots. "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities [code for Prots] as means of salvation... — CCC 818.
Once again you are at variance with what your church most plainly teaches.
• For your interpretation to work, the body of Christ must refer to one church in submission to the pope
Correct, if you substitute "communion" for "submission". That is how it works, and in no other way can the text be making sense.
According to annalex, but it is clear that while “submission” to the pope and remaining in the bosom of the church of Rome was necessary for salvation according to major past official teaching, Rome now calls baptized Prots who are not in Catholic communion as the EOs are to b Christians born of the Spirit and working for salvation. Yet which itself means you can reject papal infallibility and power, among other things — as long as to worship bread and wine as God).
...all who want to belong to the true and only Church of Christ must honor and obey this Apostolic See and Roman Pontiff." Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (On The Care Of The Churches), Encyclical promulgated on April 8, 1862, # 3. http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P9AMANT2.HTM
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos: "No one is found in the one Church of Christ, and no one perseveres in it, unless he acknowledges and accepts obediently the supreme authority of St. Peter and his legitimate successors." Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, PTC:873, http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM
"If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself." “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Promulgated November 18, 1302) http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html
Note, some translations say “when the Greeks,” which is how the Catholic Encyclopedia has it. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15126a.htm)
“By heart we believe and by mouth confess the one Church, not of heretics but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside which we believe that no one is saved.” Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, 18 December 1208
St. Thomas Aquinas: It is also shown that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation....Maximus in the letter addressed to the Orientals says: “The Church united and established upon the rock of Peter’s confession we call according to the decree of the Savior the universal Church, wherein we must remain for the salvation of our souls and wherein loyal to his faith and confession we must obey him.” St. Thomas Aquinas, Against the Errors of the Greeks, Pt. 2, ch. 36 http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm#b38
One does not have to obey the Pope blindly, but one must seek communion with the Catholic Church where he arbitrates disputes, for otherwise the promise of the Church being inspired, inerrant and final authority in disputes -- fails.
And some past teaching also rejected the Greeks due to the lack of submission to the pope. But what utterly fails is the premise that an assuredly infallible perpetuated Petrine papacy and magisterium is necessary for both writings and men of God to be recognized and established as being so, and Truth provided and preserved. It never was nor is promised except by contrived Roman devotion-driven wresting of Scripture, and upon this invented necessity Rome justifies her bureaucracy. But what is the assuredly infallible authority for Truth is the only body of Truth that is wholly inspired of God, the Scriptures.
Correct, it is not. Individual Catholics may end up in hell; individual non-Catholics, even non-Christians can be saved. The promise is to the Church as a single institution.
Non-Christians cannot be saved if Jn. 6:53,54 is literal unless it is not taken as an absolute statement, but which RCs invoke it as, but that the promise is a single organized institution is patently false. Again, as substantiated but ignored, the Scripture teaches that the church Christ builds is that of all believers, Jews and Gentiles, “In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. (Ephesians 2:21,22)
Of course. But Peter is named after Him, Rock. That cannot be insignificant.
And i did not say it was. Peter is to be as a rock in upholding the truth of Christ.
The keys are described as opening or closing the gate of the Heavenly Kingdom, so yes, that metaphor speaks of the Church in communion with Peter, and by extension, his successor, being the final arbiter of salvation.
Again i am shaking my head in amazement. You just roll on with propaganda, despite the reality that what is said to place one in the kingdom of Christ or exclude on is their response to the gospel of grace, which all the church also preached. As shown, there is simply no Peter reigning as a supreme exalted infallible pope as per Rome in Scripture, and the NT church.
Can the final arbiter of salvation be fallible? Invincibility comes not from the metaphor of the keys but from the direct speech, "gates of hell shall not prevail".
Which is begging the question. Peter is never manifest as the final arbiter of salvation except in Roman imagination. The Roman papacy is simply nonexistent, as is the perpetuation of Peter's apostleship. You only are proceeding from one propagandist error to another.
• not once in all the NT is he shown doing so
. and even being quite fallible on some occasions. Yes, popes are generally sinful men;
This is avoiding the utter absence of Peter being described as the exalted infallible head whom all the churches looked to, or even one exhortation to the churches to submit to Peter their supreme corporate head, or of that being made an issue, or any manifest preparation of a successor for him, despite the wealth and scope of material in writing to the churches.
Peter made the key decision to overturn the biblical prohibition on certain foods, and to accept the Gentiles,
Which “proves too much,” as this works against Rome's papacy and doctrine, for this also testifies to the keys to the kingdom being the gospel, (Col. 1:13) besides that of a “pope” living as a guest in the house of a tanner (no wonder he was on the roof) , he refused to allow any believer to bow before him, obeying Christ, (Mt. 23:8) that of Peter defining that the heart is purified by faith, (Acts 10:43; 15:7-9) which was before baptism (though it can be the occasion of it), while showing that Peter was still a kosher Jew at that point.
And who would protest even being told to consume unclean animals, (Acts 10:13-19) let alone human flesh and blood, but which Rome has all the apostles doing at the last supper (and drinking a cup), and thus Christ being in their stomach (and in His as well) as well as before them ignoring the Jewish use of figurative language they were quite familiar with.
Moreover, Peter did not provide the conclusive decree on what was to be done, but James, after which the church acted. (Acts 15:3ff) Thus Peter acted as the street-level leader among brethren that he was, but not as the Roman pope that he was not.
We had bad popes as well
Which also is contrary to Rome being the One True Church®, as in the NT church is not one that can allow a Caiaphas (who was not assuredly infallible as per Rome's claims for her popes) but such were not fit to be members let alone a leader among leaders, (1Tim. 3:1-7) but where never to be ordained, and put out if immoral. “Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.” (1 Corinthians 5:13) But you cannot dispose a pope without his consent!
Rome acted contrary to the NT requirements for pastors, besides distinctively titling them priests (which the Holy Spirit never does, and as i showed you before is still wrong, and is based on imposed functional equivalence, assigning to pastors a unique sacrificial function which they nowhere are seen exercising). Thus along with others things this renders the OTC that you promote to be a false church.
Yes, Peter (Cephas) is mentioned among others and not the first. We don't know if that is due to the temporal order in which Paul met them, or the authority he saw in them, or the fact that in Catholic practice today also, the faithful seek approval of the priest of his parish, then the bishop and very rarely the Pope.
This is simply damage control. Paul is not talking chronologically in the temporal order in which Paul met them, or seeking permission from James and John to met Peter, but it listing those who “seemed to be pillars,” and goes on to single out Peter was one who was to be publicly rebuked. More proof Rome did not alter the Bible.
Generally, you construct a straw man of the pope being some kind of spiritual generalissimo, above everyone else, then defeat it.
I am the one constructing a straw man of the pope being some kind of spiritual generalissimo? That IS Rome's idea of Peter, who despite the humble demeanor of your present pope, who has traditionalists alarmed, in from power and dress he is exalted far above all other bishops, being the supreme and infallible arbiter of Truth, alone possessing the gift of assured infallibility, and having full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered, (CCC 882 ) and who cannot be deposed (without his permission), and that it is “absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam)
And who historically came to reign much as emperors, as in the caesario-papacy, who “himself may be judged by no one,” and “that of the pope alone all princes shall kiss the feet.” (Dictatus papae [1075])
Q. 539. What do we mean by the "temporal power" of the Pope?
A. By the temporal power of the Pope we mean the right which the Pope has as a temporal or ordinary ruler to govern the states and manage the properties that have rightfully come into the possession of the Church.
Q. 540. How did the Pope acquire and how was he deprived of the temporal power?
A. The Pope acquired the temporal power in a just manner by the consent of those who had a right to bestow it. He was deprived of it in an unjust manner by political changes.
And
And despite any modern demeanor, the presumed supreme position and unhindered extent of power of popes remains a claim, and is summed up in the words of Dollinger:
“The Pope’s authority is unlimited, incalculable; it can strike, as Innocent III says, wherever sin is; it can punish every one; it allows no appeal and is itself Sovereign Caprice; for the Pope carries, according to the expression of Boniface VIII, all rights in the Shrine of his breast. As he has now become infallible, he can by the use of the little word, 'orbi,' (which means that he turns himself round to the whole Church) make every rule, every doctrine, every demand, into a certain and incontestable article of Faith. No right can stand against him, no personal or corporate liberty; or as the Canonists put it -- 'The tribunal of God and of the pope is one and the same.'” - Ignaz von Dollinger, in “A Letter Addressed to the Archbishop of Munich”, 1871 (quoted in The Acton Newman Relations (Fordham University Press), by MacDougall, pp. 119 120
A spiritual generalissimo indeed. It is no straw man i described, but the straw man is that which Rome makes of the NT church and the place and powers (and exercise thereof) and doctrine of Peter in Scripture.
Nor there any reason why the royal Coronation of the past could not take place, except in sensitivity to modern tastes:
The Coronation, one of the most magnificent of Vatican Ceremonies, takes place shortly after the election. With the Pope carried high in a golden chair and attended by brilliantly attired chamberlains and soldiers, the Coronation Mass is an unrivaled spectacle of beauty, dignity, and ancient pageantry. At the Coronation, in the midst of the pomp and splendor, a master of ceremonies recites in Latin: "Holy Father, thus does the glory of the world pass away." As the first Cardinal Deacon places the three-crowned Tiara on the head of the Pope, he says: "Receive the three-crowned Tiara, and know that thou are the Father of Princes and Kings, the Pastor of the earth, and Vicar of Jesus Christ, to Whom be honor and glory forever. Amen." The CORONATION of Pope Pius XII took place on the balcony of St. Peter's in March 1939. (From the book "The Vatican and Holy Year" by Stephen S. Fenichell & Phillip Andrews -- 1950 edition. http://www.users.qwest.net/~slrorer/ReunionOfChristendom.htm)
• what Rome wrests from Matthew 16:18
They can hardly be derived from Matthew 16:18.
Of what Rome wrests this is true.
Again, you can argue with Steve Hays if you want on the merits of each; I am not a Church historian.
No, why would an objective study of Scripture be necessary, and which testifies contrary to the imagination of the perpetuated Petrine papacy? Only what Rome says Scripture history and tradition teaches is authoritative for you.
"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers."
“The reason of this stand of his is that, for him, there can be no two sides to a question which for him is settled; for him, there is no seeking after the truth: he possesses it in its fulness, as far as God and religion are concerned. His Church gives him all there is to be had; all else is counterfeit... (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York )
Again: to read you is to wonder why the Bible has all these things that require many kilobytes of denials from you.
Rather, to read you is to wonder why the Bible does not have all these things that as ascribed to Peter, and require many kilobytes of propaganda from you and Rome.
Somehow the prayer of the Lord that the faith of this poor, married leader among brethren would persevere, and strengthen his brethren, is asserted to mean, via extrapolative RC imagination , that Peter was the exalted infallible head
Yup; ...infallibility, -- immunity from sustained error.
No, it means for Rome that the office of Peter uniquely posses assured infallibility so that whenever a pope speaks, even if he is a devil, that he will be preserved from error. In contrast, what Christ prayed for is that Peter's faith would not fail, which was not a promise that Peter never would fail of faith, or possess assured infallibility, but was realized in that while Peter denied Christ out of weakness, he did not apostatize, but persevered so he could strengthen others.
Which is not unique, as the Lord ever liveth to make intercession for the saints, certainly not that they fail, and promised the Thessalonians, “the Lord is faithful, who shall stablish you, and keep you from evil. “ (2 Thessalonians 3:3) And as Paul expressed, “Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ: (Philippians 1:6) “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” (Philippians 2:13)
Thus perseverance of faith does not translate into assured infallibility, neither was an assuredly infallible pope ever necessary for providing or preserving Truth. Nor again is the church shown looking to Peter as her infallible supreme head, or set forth as a solution or ever criticized for not doing so in writings to the church.
• not referring to doctrinal legislative action but that of settling personal disputes
Riight. One wonders why these mundane trivialities are in the Bible,
Wonder no more in trying to make a text speak of something it is not. .Mt. 18:15-20 simply is not referring to binding and loosing in doctrinal legislative action, though in principal that can be seen elsewhere, but of settling personal disputes.
while those all-important to the Protestant mind adjudication of theology through scripture alone is not.
Who knows what version of the usual straw man of SS you are again employing. Perhaps you have a short memory, but it has already been substantiation that it did not mean scriptu • re alone was used in understanding what Scripture means, nor as containing all that can be known, but that Scripture alone infallibly provides, formally to some degree, and materially, all that is necessary for faith salvation and and Godliness, and alone is the supreme infallible standard of faith and Truth claims.
And that Scripture is the assured Word of God and transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims is what is abundantly evidenced. Not a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium being so.
The text in Matthew 18 does not restrict the issues between brethren that the church is to resolve in any way. Maybe because there was not such distinction?
Then we are back to arguments from silence, and the Lord not knowing how to make things clear. It remains that the Lord did not speak of binding and loosing in Mt. 18 as referring to doctrinal legislative action.
And why would Christ refer to "binding and loosing" right next to the key to salvation if He means healing medical problems? And "loosing" I take it is to kill the patient instead of "binding" him?
That is one application that is a consequence of binding and loosing in Mt. 18:15-20 not simply applying to apostles, and loosing can refer to being “loosed from thine infirmity” (Lk. 13:12,16) if you allow the Lord and others so do so from these and from other bondages. (Jn. 11:44; Acts 6:8; 8:13; 19:11,12) Corporately binding and loosing can be seen in the Scripture-based doctrinal disciplinary ruling of Acts 15, while it is Paul who most manifestly binds souls to obedience to his own writings, disfellowshipping those who do not, (2Thes. 3:14) and together with the church binds a man to chastisement by the devil, while Peter tells a man who is bound in the gall of bitterness to pray himself for forgiveness. (Acts 8:22,23)
In contrast, and as regards “killing,” it is the RC application of James 5:14,15 that typically is as the kiss of death.
However, the principle of leadership and the teaching office, remains, but not as possessing perpetual assured infallibility
Because you say so? Christ spoke of the Holy Ghost teaching "for ever" and about "all things" and about Hell "not prevailing". So these were not promises? Or Christ did not know what He was talking about again?
Rather, Christ know exactly what He was talking about, again, in quite clearly only speaking about the giving the Holy Spirit that He may abide with you forever, (Jn. 14:16) as that is what He shows all believers possessing eternally. And promises to lead into all Truth, (Jn. 16:13) and then showing how “all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures.” (Luke 24:45) And in Divinely inspiring the writing of His words and deeds, and “many more things” seen in Scripture.
And in contrast, nowhere is a promise made that whatever the church would ever speak universally on faith and morals would be infallible, nor was an assuredly infallible magisterium ever necessary for providence and preservation of Truth.
The assuredly infallible magisterium of Rome is simply an invention of Rome who presumed to infallibly declare that she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. Quite the system, and which has become as the gates of Hell for multitudes.
But as this premise of assured infallibility is the basis for that assurance, and who according to you no more needs eternal proof than God, then you cannot allow anything to contradict here, and thus largely use our time up arguing the meaning of Scripture when it is simply a servant to use which must be compelled to serve Rome.
• the assurance of which really cannot be based upon the weight of Scripture?
This words I showed you and you denied them.
Wrong again. The words you showed me do not teach what you compel them to mean, nor can the weight of Scriptural substantiation the basis for your security, as that would be ceding to evangelicals that there basis is correct, and the assuredly infallible magisterium is not needed for that. Instead you have decided to render implicit assent of faith to Rome, and Scripture etc. can only assuredly mean what Rome says it means, or can whatever can be compelled to support her. Which devotion-driven assertions you have amply exampled. Why should we endure more of such?
Perhaps
There is not perhaps. You cannot find a single prayer addressed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, among the 200 or so in Scripture.
. Absence is not prohibition, is it?
Yikes. The Mormons would love you. Teaching for doctrines based on absence of prohibition (Kolob here they come).
The reality is that the autocratic authority you hold Rome has as regards civil laws also applies to all of Rome's assertions. She is her own law, with Scripture, history and tradition only meaning what she says they mean, or agree with her.
And angels and elders simply offering up the prayers of saints as a memorial at the time of judgment is sppsd to support them actually hearing prayers addressed to them and sanctioning it
It is supposed to suggest that the saints pray, and the prayers are heard by God
Then it infers only what may be speculated, not that they can hear all the prayers of those on earth and respond to them.
Besides the "time of judgment in these chapters of the Apocalypse is also a description of any Mass.
More contrivance. Repeating propaganda will never make it true for Rome or Communists.
Then they demand we take Jn. 6:53,54 literally
Yes, they do, because it is written the way it is. Read the scripture every once in a while without trying to deny half of what you read, and you will be Catholic again.
Rather, it is RCs who must deny Scripture contradicts Rome, and are not to objectively examine Scripture in order to ascertain the veracity of official teaching.
Meanwhile, resorting to sarcasm (again) in response to abundant proof from Scripture showing the contrary, as well as that this literalism results in contradicting modern Rome, also fails to make it true.
It is, of course my opinion, but I base it on the post Dan made to me. The summary of them is that he denies Christ meant what he said about the Eucharist, to wit: "this is my body, which is given for you" and "my flesh is meat indeed" and "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day". And on another topic: renaming Bar Jona "Rock" was not naming Bar-Jona after God; the promise of the keys was not the promise of ability to determine people's salvation; the "binding and loosing" was not an expression of supreme judicial ability of Peter and of the Church in all matters. I understand that Dan follows the line of thinking common to virtually all Protestants and you guys have forgotten that at root of this is denial, obfuscation and explaining away the clear text of the Holy Scripture. Nevertheless that is what it is. When Christ says "This is my body" and you argue "no, He meant 'this is a sign of my body'", -- then you deny the scripture on that point. I am not trying to insult Dan's person, I point out the horrific implications of his posts.
God bless you and drive safely. Thank you for your reasoning over the Holy Scripture with me; I regret that we disagree.
All things lead to Christ Who subsists fully in the Catholic Church. Rome is a city in Italy; never been, but they say it is charming.
As to the binding and loosening --- in Matthew 18 it is Christ who again raises the same issue, pointing out that it is He that is doing so -- while addressing them all as to having (or will have) this very same binding and loosening.
I'm sorry, but your own twisted eisegesis may suit what developed later in Rome (alone) as to singular papacy and that particular branch of the church's own preferred opinions of itself (and the "horrific implications of that) but the earliest church, even in Rome, didn't quite see it the same way.
It is in the Holy Scripture denied by you:
Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. (John 6)
I Cor. 11 is not even referring to the elements being the body of the Lord, but the church
he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. (1 Cor. 11:29, in the context of describing the words of Christ at the Last Supper that include "this is my body")
inconsistent in holding Jn. 6:53,54 as literal while upholding V2 teaching that properly baptized Prots have the Holy Spirit in them and working thru them.
You will do fine converting to Catholicism and holding Vatican II fallible. I'd rather have you believing the Holy Scripture than the Vatican II pastoral reflections. However, there is no inconsistency: while a valid baptism does save anyone who committed no further sin and dies; and while Protestants may be saved by their works in imitation of and love for Christ; that is while on the road to the saving Eucharist, -- when an intelligent and educated man spends day after day writing anti-Catholic essays that deny Christ's words, -- no there is no salvation in that case, not till such time these positions are turned away from in horror.
Further, the argument is not whether the connection between the eating of the Eucharist and salvation is allowing exceptions, -- obviously it does since the Good Thief, for example, was neither baptized by water nor received the Eucharist, but rather whether actual eating of the actual body of Christ is taking place when the Eucharist is eaten.
other places where elements are called the blood of men
That is no problem; certainly people have employed all kinds of metaphors, including one that the water drawn at great human cost has blood in it. In the Last Supper blessing, however, taken together with 1 Cor. 11 and John 6, there is no metaphorical speech observable. Likewise, the fact that there is plenty of allegorical speech in the Bible does not mean that everything you don't like in it is allegorical.
Endocannibalism is most often an expression of veneration of the dead, or the pursuit of consuming some esoteric aspect of the person, like the deceased’s wisdom.
Neither bizarre and dangerous for health practices among some people tell us anything about the content of the Bible.
your basis for assurance of Truth, which you are still not facing.
You invited me on this unrelated to anything thread because you wanted to discuss the statements of mine that expressed the said basis. Remember? So no, I don't think I was evading any questions. The pillar and ground of all truth is the Catholic Church (1 Timothy 3:15)
If you are puzzled why I listen to the Church but argue from the scripture, -- I believe I answered that as well: The Holy Church produced the inerrant scripture precisely because she wished to provide a set of absolutes from which to argue and understand the doctrine. So, the texts of John 6, the three synoptic accounts of the Last Supper and 1 Cor. 11 provide such purely scriptural basis for the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.
you are claiming individual laity have the gift of infallibility
LOL. Two fallible men disagree. They cannot both be right. Does this mean that the one who is right is also infallible? I am right because I learn from the Church who is both infallible and right. Doesn't say anything about me. The least, wholly illiterate bungling goatherd somewhere up in the Andes cannot speak a falsehood as pertains to the matters of Catholic faith so far as she had retained it correctly; that has nothing to do with her merits either.
There is absolutely nothing in Jn. 14 about Peter or perpetuated leadership being promised assured infallibility
Read the holy Scripture every once in a while and you will discover amazing things.
"The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you. (John 14:17, several similar in the chapter)So the spirit is (1) of truth; (2) is known and received in the Church rather than in the world; (3) abides in the Church. That is not infallibility?
No Peter is not mentioned, because the Holy Ghost is not in St. Peter alone but in the entire Church. Of course, of Peter we also know the ability to recover from error and confirm fellow bishops (Luke 22:32), and the possession of the Keys to Heaven; but here Jesus is talking to the Church and of the Church as a whole.
the church began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses
What does that have to do with anything? That every heretic should also dissent every time he hears from Christ something he doesn't like?
Rome ... Rome ... Rome
What you think of "Rome" does not interest me. I would like to focus on the Holy Scripture, however unpleasant it is to you.
"communion" vs "submission"
Matter of translation and of context. Certainly, theological communion is the least requirement; we have such with the Orthodox. On the other hand, political submission -- like popes dictating to kings, -- is of course a good thing, but is not universally required. The point is that the Protestant communities of faith do good inasmuch as they speak in agreement with the Church, but not otherwise.
to place one in the kingdom of Christ or exclude on is their response to the gospel of grace, which all the church also preached
No one is arguing with that. However, at the same time:
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 16:19)
Observe: second person singular, "thou" -- that is to Peter personally. You have to read the scripture and see its authority even in matters you "dissent" about.
this works against Rome's papacy and doctrine, for this also testifies to the keys to the kingdom being the gospel, (Col. 1:13) besides that of a “pope” living as a guest in the house of a tanner [...]
The popes are there to protect the Gospel from charlatans and nothing says that popes should act like royalty; Christianity generally teaches and admires humility, even in the popes.
Peter was one who was to be publicly rebuked
But not for a doctrinal error; it was Peter who initiated baptizing the Gentiles. Paul rebuked Peter for not living up to his own doctrine. This is not in contradiction to infallibility. That there was a little mutual disagreement between Sts Paul and Peter we know. See also 2 Peter 3:16.
"The Pope’s authority is unlimited, incalculable; it can strike, as Innocent III says, wherever sin is; it can punish every one; it allows no appeal" ...
Good quote. So you understand now that this is spiritual authority above all else, and political authority and imperial attitude, when it accompanies the Pope at all, -- all men are different, and all are sinners, -- is secondary to the spiritual authority?
it means for Rome that the office of Peter uniquely posses assured infallibility
Not true, the Church is infallible as a whole as well.
.Mt. 18:15-20 simply is not referring to binding and loosing in doctrinal legislative action
Really? Where is that in the Bible?
loosing can refer to being “loosed from thine infirmity”
Or loosing a dog, or a belt. Words are funny that way: they can apply to many different things.
I don’t see anything meaningful here. If you have a question,please ask.
What about it? It teaches that the Eucharist does not "profit" the stomach. And indeed it doesn't. That finishes the contrast to the Manna, which only fed the stomach. This does not say anything about the nature of the Eucharist itself.
Yes, binding and loosing was later given the entire Catholic Church.
summing it up as "That finishes the contrast to the Manna, which only fed the stomach" is rather hollow, or woodenly dismissive.
Later? a whole 2 chapters later, with the setting in Matthew 18 having as I made mention of -- it being Christ Himself who directly gave the binding and loosening to all the rest.
It was not funneled through Peter "later" to be then distributed thru Peter, or for Peter to rule over the others in that authority, or any such notions.
Only later, centuries later did Rome begin to read those sort of "ideas" into the texts.
Meanwhile, there is still extant on the earth today, these nearly 2000 years later, those bishoprics who can bear their own apostolic testimony which is not only in disagreement with the idea of singular papacy having been what was established from the beginning (along with some perhaps sharper disagreements with much of the attendant theological baggage which has accumulated over the centuries in regards to it) but can show that they never were --- in any sort of agreement with "the baggage" beyond the bishopric of Rome once enjoying high regard by many for it having a double-apostolicity, while it had also for the most part stayed out of the earliest controversies.
Centuries later -- popes of Rome have declared Paul to have been subservient to Peter (while those of Rome attempt to promote Rome as being only "the See of Peter" that ever there was) while none else make such distinctions as to Paul being "lesser" but rather as Peter being primary as much in example for all the rest -- which all the other Patriarchates as they were once known, having the same "authority" at least in basic principle, with the sense that each was as equally in lineage to all the original Apostles as any other.
If not -- then we end up rebuking Paul when he rightfully rebuked those whom from very early on attempted to make such distinctions among themselves, using himself (Paul) and Apollos, as examples of the carnal nature of man to tend immediately towards such divisions of the body.
3 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.
10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
As late as Gregory the Great -- that man, as bishop of Rome wrote that the See of Peter was in three places, while also writing that any who strove for the title "Universal" (as in universal bishop, thus bishop of bishops also) was in serious error.
In that particular letter Gregory wrote that the title had been encouraged by those near to himself in Rome to take up for himself -- acknowledging also that his own predecessor (Leo) had availed himself of it -- but he (Gregory) declined it in the first opening paragraphs of going against the notion severely and repeatedly in no uncertain terms.
The autocephaly of other apostolic traditions bears witness against the presumptions of Romanists which they rather impose upon scripture itself.
Nor did I say that. The point remains, to Peter "binding and loosing" is given first , and is accompanied with the gift of the Keys to Heaven and other forms of exaltation; to the disciples is given the power of binding and loosing, but not the keys, nor other attributes. Make of it what you will.
Do you have a question to me that I missed?
It doesn't matter that you did not say those exact words here, for the concept is part of the otherwise accumulated theological baggage, it cannot be denied.
As to "questions" --- I am not here to ask any of you in seeking answer for myself for some unknown thing -- but rather, as I have spoken to you before, any which I may pose are only to prompt your own further examination and nothing more.
Since it seems clear enough that the above from 1 Corinthians 3 is not understood--- it would be retrograde of me to seek guidance from yourself.
If you only knew what I know. I wish you could. Then you would be able to understand...
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.