Posted on 12/14/2014 11:57:21 AM PST by ealgeone
False premise; Catholics trace their authority to the Messiah telling a Jewish Apostle that he is Peter, and upon this rock He will build His Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Observant Catholics actually believe the LORD Jesus Christ. Evangelicals tend to trace authority from personal experiences, with a personal Saviour, a personal interpretation of the Bible, a personal decision as to what constitutes sin in their eyes, a personal decision as to what, if any, church attendance, church membership, or church authority they think should apply to them, this year, this month, this day.
We have our very own Denominational Inquisitor (you know who you are), who constantly badgers us about what top-down model we belong to, when the whole point is we don't even accept the premise of a human top-down model.
I view people who are antiCatholic but hide their affiliation as Catholics trying to remove their Catholic baptism or members of some sect or cult that fear the light will expose them to ridicule because of what their sect or cult believes. I cannot imagine an observant Catholic or Independent Fundamental Baptist being too ashamed, embarrassed, or frightened to affirm his or her denominational/sect/faith group affiliation on an anonymous website as they purport to prophesy to others what is true or false.
What book, chapter and verse says that saints do that?
Have any of them ever changed a single mind on these threads?
Years ago there was a woman on the Yahoo forums that said so many of the same things. I had to see if she was telling the truth. Find out how much she was in error helped get me back into the Catholic Church.
“True. I keep wondering about what Jesus is thinking when somebody disses his momma.”
Indeed! Or makes His earthly mother into an idol.
Your projection is showing again........
There you go again insisting Jesus sinned by eating blood.
You mean like this?
Deuteronomy 15:23 Only thou shalt not eat the blood thereof; thou shalt pour it upon the ground as water.
Or this?
Acts 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well.
Or maybe you meant this one.
Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
You have been shown multiple times that in no way does it say Mary was “full of grace”.
Ah ha! There's the problem!!!
I Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Spirit teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
We trust the Holy Spirit to teach us and don't rely on some fallible man. Putting your faith in the Catholic Church will get you what the Catholic Church gets. We will put our faith in Christ alone and rely on His promises.
CCC 424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.
You don't agree with the Catholic catechism?
Okay that is just straight up hilarious.
LOL, you like that huh?😄 Well, let me say this, I am not the one who originated that name. I just picked it up from others, but it is a bad cult. Now, generally speaking, they are usually very nice people, as are Quiboloy's people, but when it comes to talking about their "church," they are quite hard core. They do not accept the Trinity, and believe that Jesus Christ was a mere man, not God in the flesh. What else is there? If they get that wrong, nothing else matters. Their plan of salvation is baptism, good works and church membership, and they claim to be the only true church. Felix Manalo, is long since dead, even his son, the next in line, died in 2009, and the grandson of Felix runs the show now. Now, Quiboloy's cult, The Kingdom of Jesus Christ, the Name Above All Names, is a horse of a different color. Quiboloy actually claims to be the annointed son of God, and says Davao City is the new Jerusalem. It is not, and he is not the annointed son of God, but he claims their church is the only true church. The truth of the matter is, both are nothing but huge extortion rackets, money making machines. I don't know what else can be said about them, but 2 Peter 2:3 applies, with feigned words, they will make merchandise of you.
I assume a certain level of scriptural literacy, as well as English grammar, and so, perhaps, am more terse in my comments than you require. Try reading in your Bible both before and after the portion the Catechism quotes. Messiah blessed Simon. Messiah called Simon by the name Peter, a Greek rendition of the Aramaic name, Cephas, He already gave Simon much earlier, and promised to build His church on this rock. Messiah promises to give Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the power to bind and loose. At least you are reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I hope that you can benefit as it is do very well written. At least it will not harm you, and if you can trade cynicism for love you shall prosper indeed.
Let me recommend this portion and see if the answer to your awkward question comes to you.
552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve;283 Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Our Lord then declared to him: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it."284 Christ, the "living Stone",285 thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.286
The suffix -μενος, -μενη, -μενο (here in plural, -μενα) simply means it the action of the preceding verb is completed. When it is completed is controlled by the verb εἰμί. In this case we have εσται, future tense, "will-be" (I insert a hyphen because in Greek that's one word). So "εσται δεδεμένα" means "will-be bound", etc.
You can translate "shall have been bound" if you want to overcomplicate the text. Most readers of English understand that "shall be bound" does not mean "shall be being bound again and again", -- the action of binding will be complete. Young's literal has it even "shall be having been bound", which is simply incorrect English grammar.
Shall have been is the correct way to interpret the perfect tense. Sorry you feel that "over complicates" things. Also,I did not say it would be bound over and over again. That's your point...not mine. You need to go and re-read how the perfect tense in Greek works. Young's translation, while not smooth, does capture what the perfect tense is about.
So on that part you are correct: the heavenly binding and loosing is complete, finished binding and loosing, not continuous one (which in Greek would use the suffix -ομαι, -εται).
I'm glad you recognize this.
You are wrong about "results existing in the present time". The future tense of εσται indicates that the result will be complete in the future. This is also consistent with the conditional εαν. All the translations agree on that part
No...all the translations do not agree on that part.
NASB, which is the most literal of the translations records the verse as:
Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.
Again, go research the perfect tense. While it may not come across in the printed word, it is up to the expositor to bring out the meaning of the tense of the verbs and participles.
I understand that when we talk about heaven time considerations are somewhat blurred, -- there is no time for God, -- but the meaning here is clear: the Church (or, at least, the disciples present) may bind and loose in the future, and whatever decision they make on earth will be in heaven.
You might want to re-think the part I've bolded. That's a pretty open ended statement you've made there and I'm pretty sure it isn't how it's supposed to work.
For example, if the church says it's ok for women to be priests, I don't think Heaven would agree as it contradicts the Word....but that's never stopped catholicism before.
False premise; Catholics trace their authority to the Messiah telling a Jewish Apostle that he is Peter, and upon this rock He will build His Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Observant Catholics actually believe the LORD Jesus Christ. Evangelicals tend to trace authority from personal experiences, with a personal Saviour, a personal interpretation of the Bible, a personal decision as to what constitutes sin in their eyes, a personal decision as to what, if any, church attendance, church membership, or church authority they think should apply to them, this year, this month, this day.
Yet your own catechism says it is upon the confession of Peter.
424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”8 On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.9 (683, 552)
If it's not a personal relationship with Jesus....then what is it? Some standoff relationship that you can't approach Him? Maybe that's catholicism....but that's not what the Bible teaches. You guys are too busy calling to Mary and others. Maybe if you focused as much energy on the Word and Jesus and not Mary you'd understand.
As a Christian I know whose authority to submit to and that is the authority of Christ....based on His Word.
As a Christian I know what sin is as the Bible makes that clear.
As a Christian I don't recall the Word saying you have to attend church x number of times a year to "qualify" or "keep your membership good". It does however say to not neglect your assembling together.
As a Christian I am guided by the Holy Spirit who instructs us as He is our Helper. He will let me know if the church I'm in is the right one or not.
Yes it does, and if you could only read a bit further you would have found it also says Peter is the rock (see post 4813 or read in the Catechism at 552). You were reading in the Catholic Catechism and not some other site, correct ?
Yes it does, and if you could only read a bit further you would have found it also says Peter is the rock (see post 4813 or read in the Catechism at 552). You were reading in the Catholic Catechism and not some other site, correct ?
You've got the CCC saying two different things, ECFs with contradictory positions on this, and other issues.
Must be confusing to be a catholic.
Too much true. When you presume perpetual magisterial veracity, then all invoked evidenced must support or at least not contradict you.
..in all cases the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent.” — John Henry Newman,
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity....Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. . — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.
Thus the reasoning (akin to Mormonism),
Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter. .(Providentissimus Deus; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html)
Under Rome, one cannot even know what writings are of God without a prior assent to Rome:
..the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities between the word of God and his reading. Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm
Thus when faced with their circularity (invoking Scripture to prove one must submit to Rome to know what Truth is), they resort to appealing to Scripture as merely a historically reliable document. Upon which one is sppsd to find warrant to submit to Rome, and not examine the evidence to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching.
Yet the reality is that the church itself began with souls having correctly judged both men and writings as being of God, while a perpetual infallible magisterium was never necessary to provide or preserve Truth.
We are actually forced to get back in the ring again and again and defend our position against Scripture, a combat arena where only the most sound Scriptural arguments get any traction over time.
The contrast is btwn presumed perpetual magisterial veracity versus veracity based upon Scriptural substantiation.
So as a result of that initial dictatorial imprint, Rome has evolved an entirely different way of approaching the doctrine of divine revelation. In Rome's culture, it is still emperor-driven, top down. But Jesus designed us to avoid having a human "top banana," because there's only room at the top for one Person, Jesus Himself. That we would ever have to look to some single top mortal was specifically denied by Jesus. Instead, we were told we would receive a body of truth from the Holy Spirit, and we did, and we were to be guided by that body of truth, not by a succession of Roman Emperor wannabes.
Post of the day at least. This does not exclude leadership, but not as under Roman Caesario- papacies, in which "It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.
No, it just requires a deep and abiding faith in God to believe profound truths that seem contradictory to the natural man, like the Messiah being a Jewish man and the Son of God/God the Son at the same time.
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.