You can invoke the ignorant clause, but basically you do not simply do not hold to salvation by works, but salvation via the Eucharist. And thus there is contradiction btwn your statement that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ and necessary for salvation, and the affirmation of V2 that properly baptized Prots have the Holy Spirit who works in and thru them.
For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal.
They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (Cf. Jn. 16:13) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical [Protestant] communities...
They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood... - Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium; solemnly promulgated by Pope Paul VI, November 21, 1964 http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 84), May 25, 1995" "All Christian Communities know that, thanks to the power given by the Spirit, obeying that will and overcoming those obstacles are not beyond their reach. All of them in fact have martyrs for the Christian faith....These Saints come from all the Churches and Ecclesial Communities which gave them entrance into the communion of salvation...This universal presence of the Saints is in fact a proof of the transcendent power of the Spirit. It is the sign and proof of God's victory over the forces of evil which divide humanity. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html
And insisting Jn. 53,54 compels one to be Catholic is absurd, for as briefly shown here , it requires more eisegesis that is contrary to the figurative use of eating and drinking and the means by which one gains spiritual and eternal life in Scripture.
If they have the Holy Spirit who works in and thru them then they are children of God now, without believing in or consuming the Eucharist. And even this possession of life within them is impossible if Jn. 6:53 is taken literally,
Yes, except it is not "text" that promise but rather Christ has promised exactly that, and I, a Christian, believe Him.
RCs see texts such as Mt. 16:18 and Jn. 14:16 as promising a perpetual infallible authoritative magisterium
Engaging in imaginary semantic distinctions will not gain you any points, and avoids the reasoning (below) behind RCs being driven to interpret this and other Divinely inspired texts as supporting Rome.
But such an ecclesiastical magisterium was not how writings and men of God were established as being so in Scripture
You mean, Christ did not say what is written, or said it without meaning it, or what?
It seems like you are avoiding the "what," that of the reasoning behind interpreting a promise of a persevering church and of God's presence to mean that of a perpetual infallible magisterium, versus the normal corporate meaning of church, that of the body of Christ, founded upon Christ, as seen understood among CFs, and the Lord's presence being that of the giving of the Spirit upon all believers.
That this must necessitate a perpetual infallible magisterium is a premise which simply is not Scriptural. If you think it is, then defend it, rather than just asserting your interpretation must be correct. Which itself is based upon the premise that Rome cannot be wrong, as being the fulfillment of the perpetual infallible magisterium you see promised in Scripture, but which is driven by a the conclusion it seeks to defend, as in fact Scripture is not even determinative for an RC, and his basis for assurance.
while Scripture is not even determinative for an RC.
The Holy Scripture records words spoken by Christ, in this case, or otherwise words spoken by the Church and her Builder through her prelates and saints. That is authoritative.
It seems you are back to your prior assertion the doctors and prelates speak Divinely inspired words on faith and morals, which makes you more Catholic than Catholic scholastic sources.
In any case, it does not deny what i said, Scripture is not even determinative for an RC." despite their attempt to use it to support teachings which are basis upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome.
If the words "Gates of Hell shall not prevail over the Church I shall build" (paraphrasing) were said in some different context you could argue whatever that context would allow. You still would have to explain how anything or anybody could prevail or not prevail over a community of all Christians, or else you are back to "Church" meaning not a collective of people but an institution
First, it is a matter of debate even among RCs as to whether "the gates of Hell shall not prevail" means the authority of Hell attacking the church, or that of the church overcoming the powers of Hell to rescue souls whose destination is Hell.
In either case, the church is the body of Christ, consisting of all who possesses His Spirit, and which Rome herself acknowledges others as having beyond the Catholic church. It is the "one new man" fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God," who "have access by one Spirit unto the Father" and are "builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit," and to whom Christ is married. (Eph. 2:18,19,22; 5:25) This is the only body that is only made up of believers, and it is thus attacked by the powers of Hell, thus believes are exhorted, "Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them; and them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also in the body." (Hebrews 13:3)
For your interpretation to work, the body of Christ must refer to one church in submission to the pope, with it alone being what is engaged in war with the invisible powers of darkness. Yet it is the organized church that has often attacked those who belong to the body of Christ, even using the sword of men, thus being an instrument of the devil. Thus the organized church of Rome alone or any other cannot be the church the Lord refers to her.
While the body of Christ has its visible manifestations, the war btwn the powers of Hell vs the church are not restricted to one organized church, as the body is not restricted to that. Yet the devil can attack one or more organized churches in particular, even using them to do so, but none epresent the whole body.
Moreover, while the early diverse church had a basic if not comprehensive unity under manifestly true apostles, these apostles and the NT church stand in significant and critical contrast to that of Rome, and its limited unity is largely organizational and largely on paper, and exists in divisions. And she overall lacks the essential unity of the Spirit that is the result of a shared conversion and abiding relationship with Christ, which is greater than the differences among those walking therein, and transcends tribal differences. Due to this and a common contention for core truths, evangelicals have been treated as the greatest threats by both Rome and liberals, and are overall more unified in core beliefs than the overall fruit of Rome.
Further, you would still have to note that that institution is thought of by Jesus as a single one, not several or many -- because in the latter case He would have to somehow define how His promise would apply to each of them singly.
What you think must done and what must be done are two different things. The promise that the gates of Hell will not overcome the entity called the church is not a promise to individuals under my definition, "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body...For the body is not one member, but many." (1 Corinthians 12:13,14) despite your attempt to make it so, but it is to a corporate body which only consists of true born again believers. That is what the powers of hell wars with, including thru the organized church, though it wars with individual believers and churches as well.
The context is not just the naming of Simon Bar Jona "Rock" but also the promise of "keys to heaven", the attestation that God revealed to Peter his confession, and the promise that the infallible, invincible Church will be built on the very "rock" that Peter is being named after; that, lastly, Peter can legislate on earth and his legislation will be binding in heaven.
I shake my head in amazement of what an RC can wrest out of Scripture as needed to support Rome when it simply is not there, and is why the real basis for your assurance of Truth, which cannot be the weight of Scriptural evidence, was my focus .
Here you a least seem to have church built on "the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter," (CCC 424) but which by extension makes the object of that faith, Christ, the Rock upon which the church is built, which interpretation of the Rock is the only one that the rest of Scripture attests to, abundantly.
Then you have the keys somehow translating into the infallible, invincible Church, and that Peter (uniquely supremely) can legislate on earth and his legislation will be binding in heaven!
Such careless wanton extrapolation renders Scripture to be a servant to support Rome, and is not what it teaches in the light of the rest of it. What is abundantly manifest is that the "keys" to the kingdom is that of the gospel, the power of God unto salvation," as by faith in it believers are translated into the kingdom of Christ, (Col. 1:13) whether they heard of Peter or not. Phillip preached Christ out of Is. 53 for salvation, not Peter, being sent by the Holy Spirit. (Acts 8:26-38)
And what the NT revelation shows is never that of Peter reigning over the church corporate as its supreme infallible head, and in fact not once in all the NT is he shown doing so, nor even in the church epistles or in the Lord's critique of the churches in Rv. 2,3 is submission to Peter as this head ever exhorted or made an issue, even as a solution to problems, nor any lack thereof faulted,
While Peter was a Spirit-filled miracle-working preacher and the street-level leader among many apostles, and who exercised a general pastoral role, (1Pt. 1:1) yet he who never claimed to be anything more than "a servant," "an apostle," "an elder," (2Pt. 1:1; 1Pt. 5:1) nor is he described as being more than one of the pillars, with James being listed first. (Gal. 2:9)
It is Peter who provides briefly key testimony and sound counsel in Act 15, affirming the evangelical gospel of justification by faith, "purifying their hearts by faith," before baptism, but an obedient faith first formally expressed in baptism. (Acts 10:43,47; 15:7-9) And briefly urges this counsel to be accepted versus the gospel of the Judaizers. Yet it is James who provides the (approx. 175 word) conclusive decree on what is to be believed and done.
Yet the primary evangelist and church planter is the apostle Paul, who preached Christ as being the Son of God immediately after his conversion and the laying on hands by "a certain disciple, Ananais. (Acts 9:10-20) Yet who theologically received the gospel of grace by direct revelation. (Gal. 1:12)
Only after 3 years does he meet specifically with the eyewitness-leader Peter, and he also sees James, (Gal. 1:18,19) and then goes about preaching for 14 years before presenting his message as a matter of course to "them which were of reputation," "who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person), "who seemed to be pillars." (Galatians 2:2,6.9)
All of which upholds the principle of leadership and accountability to such, yet not as providing apostleship or infallibly determining authenticity, but confirming what was already possessed. Nor does the language there does not supports the status afforded the Roman papacy, directing all souls to look to Peter as its exalted head.
While the Roman pope stands above all other bishops in both actions, dress and ascribed powers, Paul presents Peter as just one of them to appeared to be pillars, and does not even list Peter first among the three, but second, and makes it clear it made no difference to him what they seemed to be, as God looks at the heart and sees what men in position really are. And in proceeding paragraphs Paul is sure to include how otherwise holy Peter acted hypocritically, and was thus rebuked publicly.
Apologist Steve Hays also writes of just a few of the intervening steps of what Rome wrests from Matthew 16:18: a) The promise of Mt 16:18 has reference to “Peter.” b) The promise of Mt 16:18 has “exclusive” reference to Peter. c) The promise of Mt 16:18 has reference to a Petrine “office.” d) This office is “perpetual” e) Peter resided in “Rome” f) Peter was the “bishop” of Rome g) Peter was the “first” bishop of Rome h) There was only “one” bishop at a time i) Peter was not a bishop “anywhere else.” j) Peter “ordained” a successor k) This ceremony “transferred” his official prerogatives to a successor. l) The succession has remained “unbroken” up to the present day. Lets go back and review each of these twelve separate steps: More .
As it is obviously that the RC assertions of what Mt. 16:18 and other texts teach are driven by the premise that the only interpretation of what Scripture is and means is that of Rome, thus the premise that is behind the reasoning that a perpetual infallible magisterium is necessary and that Rome is that magisterium remains the issue.
Now, "rock" is indeed a metaphor for God everywhere in scripture. Your opinion seems to be that Jesus either did not know that, or did not mean that... I prefer to think that Jesus knew what he was doing and meant to give Bar-Jona this divinizing name, because the renaming was in the context of other kind of promises, authorizations and praises given Peter. It is a single package and the package describes pretty much an invincible Church with an infallible Pope in it.
What you prefer does not line up with Scripture and the Christ who knew what he was doing in showing Peter to be radically different than the Roman papacy, thus the RC Jesus is one who did not know what He was doing thru Scripture, and thus needed to make the Roman church has supreme over Scripture, and found forgeries and fables helpful as Scripture manifestly fails to support the infallible perpetuated Petrine papacy and church, which Rome "infallibly" declares herself to be.
Instead of the RC idea, the Lord knew what "rock" conveyed, and who the real Rock was, and made a distinction btwn what the rock-Peter said and the One whom he confessed, which rock name he was act in conformity with, but a distinction which the Lord quickly made in calling Peter a satan. Which type of thing is just one more piece of evidence that Rome did not write the Bible to support her, despite what Islam imagines.
Nor is it a single episode: in Luke 22:31 Christ predicts that it is Peter whose faith will infallibly convert others during difficult times.
Simply in-credible! 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 whom all the church looked to as the first of a line of infallible popes ruling from Rome! Which neither Scripture nor history supports.
Another way of twisting and ultimately denying scripture is to...
Is to engage in straw men or read whatever is necessary into Scripture to support Rome as if she were God.
That the legislative authority being also with the Church (in Matthew 18:18) cannot be with Peter
Which is another example wresting texts. This is not referring to doctrinal legislative action but that of settling personal disputes, which is seen in the government and jurisprudence of the Old Testament, (Dt. 1:13-17) which the writers so often hearken back to. And which in NT application was not that of the apostles in Jerusalem, but the apostle Paul writes, “If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.” (1 Corinthians 6:4)
And the principle of binding here goes beyond disfellowship, but also relates to healing. And while elders (not men distinctively titled "priests") normally are the ones called in to intercede, (Ja. 514,15) in Mt. 18:15-20 the principle of binding here is not simply addressed to the apostles, but "Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Matthew 18:19-20) Thus the promise, "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." (James 5:16)
that none of that can possibly apply to anything or anyone today because the authority of Peter died with Peter.
As said, the level of attestation must correspond to the claims made, and Rome esp. utterly fails to manifest the manner of power purity and signs of an apostles, while claiming perpetual assured infallibility, which the apostles did not claim, but persuaded souls by "manifestation of the Truth," "in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God," (2Cor. 4:2; 6:4ff) "For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. (1 Corinthians 4:20) Rome makes a mockery of this corespondent authority and Scriptural regeneration and the church of the living, not institutionalized God, as per Rome and liberal Prot churches (which tend to be more like Rome).
However, the principle of leadership and the teaching office, remains, but not as possessing perpetual assured infallibility. As Rome claims this of her popes and bishops, while failing of the apostolic qualifications and attestation, she has automatically distinguished herself from that of Scripture.
Spare the childishness. Read the Scripture every once in a while like God means what He says. You will feel better.
Stop engaging in soliloquy, or resorting to spitballs, and dare to take off your Roman glasses and objectively search the Scripture to determine the veracity of Roman teaching. But which you are not to do, and thus why ague Scripture with RCs when the foundational issue is that of implicit assent to Rome based upon the a priori premise of her assured infallibility, the assurance of which really cannot be based upon the weight of Scripture?
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.
the figurative use of eating and drinking and the means by which one gains spiritual and eternal life in Scripture.
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. All that you do about it is not read the scripture but explain away the scripture, so that "is" no longer means "is".
the normal corporate meaning of church, that of the body of Christ, founded upon Christ, as seen understood among CFs, and the Lord's presence being that of the giving of the Spirit upon all believers.
That does not explain the promise of infallibility in "And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever. 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." Surely we can't both be infallible on such important matters and yet belong to that amorphous group of people who vaguely beleive a thing or two about Jesus Christ. It also contradicts the concrete text regarding Peter vested with leadership, and of the bishops likewise in a position of authority and leadership. You threw away all the specific scripture that does not match the Protestant ecclesiology.
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; the protestant musings about the scripture is not determinative. Why is it determinative only patristically? Because the scripture is the product of the work of the Fathers of the Church. In this case, however, -- 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, so that any Protestant exegesis only succeeds in obfuscating it.
authority of Hell attacking the church
That is some kind of sheer nonsense. Christ breaks the gates of Hell and rescues men in bondage of sin, -- and He does it through His Church. That is what it means, nothing else.
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. 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.
The promise that the gates of Hell will not overcome the entity called the church is not a promise to individuals under my definition
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.
Christ, the Rock upon which the church is built
Of course. But Peter is named after Him, Rock. That cannot be insignificant.
the keys somehow translating into the infallible, invincible Church
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. 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".
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; otherwise Christ would not have chosen him. Peter made the key decision to overturn the biblical prohibition on certain foods, and to accept the Gentiles, in the company of the other bishops, and the Council was presided by S.t James as the local bishop in Jerusalem. We had outright bad popes as well; the assumption that the pope must be some heroic leader at all times is not in the scripture. The scriptural role of the Pope is to resist error and "confirm the brethren" (Luke 22:31-32).
the primary evangelist and church planter is the apostle Paul
So? We see him, however, seeking approval from "James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars". 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.
Generally, you construct a straw man of the pope being some kind of spiritual generalissimo, above everyone else, then defeat it.
what Rome wrests from Matthew 16:18
These are true doctrines, except possibly (h) since Peter did found the Church at Antioch. They can hardly be derived from Matthew 16:18. Again, you can argue with Steve Hays if you want on the merits of each; I am not a Church historian.
the Lord knew what "rock" conveyed, and who the real Rock was, and made a distinction btwn what the rock-Peter said and the One whom he confessed, which rock name he was act in conformity with
Right, but He, with all that knowledge in mind, still renamed Bar-Jona Rock, and continues to call him Rock (in whatever language) despite Peter's falling out of grace a few times; once in the "satan" episode immediately following. Again: to read you is to wonder why the Bible has all these things that require many kilobytes of denials from you.
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; that is what faith that falls not and recovers from error, and confirms others in truth means: infallibility, -- immunity from sustained error.
not referring to doctrinal legislative action but that of settling personal disputes
Riight. One wonders why these mundane trivialities are in the Bible, while those all-important to the Protestant mind adjudication of theology through scripture alone is not.
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? 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?
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?
the assurance of which really cannot be based upon the weight of Scripture?
This words I showed you and you denied them.