Divinum Officium: Whoever does not embrace the Catholic Christian religion will be damned

From the Martyrology today we have: "At Damascus, [in the year 743,] holy Peter Mavimeno. Some Arabs came to see him while he was ill, and to them he said, " Whoever does not embrace the Catholic Christian religion will be damned, as your false prophet Mohammed is," whereupon they killed him."

Thank you very much for such a thoughtful and moving explanation. I particularly like this paragraph:

Forever? no. But I think the thing will go to court. Someday I will stand before Yeshua and have to answer for those things I have done which were not forgiven by those against whom I committed them... My accusers will stand with me there... In this I will be judged as I have judged...

As a Catholic I interepret the "whose sins you retain" phrase differently (at least in one sense) as a delegation of authority to the Church, but anyway after reading your explanation I think understand the Protestant position on this phrase, which previoulsy didn't make any sense to me.

As an aside, are you a reader of First Things? If not, I recommend checking them out because (at their best) they handle Christian dialogue in the way you approach it.

Also, however you interpret Matthew 16:19 you may like this photo I recently took next to a church in Oaxaca, Mexico.

http://www.edwinlanddesigns.com/Photography/Mexico/Oaxaca/i-NK6x7DF/M

The Catholic idea that the priest has the authority to either forgive or retain is NOT found in the Greek meaning of the text. The word they have translated into "will be" or "are" is actually the Greek word that means "I am". As in it already existed.

I don't know enough Greek to evaluate the Greek words at issue; could you provide a link to a discussion of them?

But I can evaluate the English and note that Catholics do not translate this as "will be" but rather as "are". Here is John 20:23 as found in the Catholic RSV (from the EWTN website):

If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

And by the way, how would you deal with Matthew 16:19, which, even in the King James Bible is stated in the future tense:

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The Greek word used there is "esomai" which is the future tense of eimi and is best translated as "shall be".

http://classic.net.bible.org/strong.php?id=1510

Matthew 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be (ἔσται - estai) bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be (ἔσται - estai) loosed in heaven.

Greek - (ἔσται - estai) - Definition: I am, exist.
Strong's - 1510 (eimí), and its counterparts, (properly) convey "straight-forward" being (existence, i.e. without explicit limits).

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am (eimí) the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM (eimí)."

>>The Greek word used there is "esomai" which is the future tense of eimi and is best translated as "shall be".<<

Not in the Greek. Matthew 16:19 uses ἔσται - estai and not ἔσομαι - esomai which is used in Hebrews 8:12.

Hebrews 8:12 For I will be (ἔσομαι - esomai) merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

Neither did I find Matthew 16:19 listed on the site you referenced for esomai.

Not in the Greek. Matthew 16:19 uses ἔσται - estai and not ἔσομαι - esomai which is used in Hebrews 8:12.

You are correct that the word is not esomai. Sorry that was my mistake.

But why do you think that estai is always in the present tense? For example, how to explain Matthew 13:40-42, where the "completion of the age" is (I hope) in the future, but where there "will be" / estai weeping and gnashing of teeth?

Or I am missing your point and it's not so much about the tense but about the type of being?

>>Or I am missing your point and it's not so much about the tense but about the type of being?<<

I think that statement does explain it pretty much. Keep in mind that eimi means "I am" or "exists". With that in mind read into Matthew 13:40 exists instead of "will be". It makes as much sense and doesn't corrupt the original meaning of the Greek word. It would read like this.

Matthew 13:40 "As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it ~~will be~~ exists at the end of the age.

Now in verse 41 the word is apostelló or "I send forth".

In verse 42 again it could better read "where there ~~will be~~ exists weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Your on the right track. Closely checking the Greek and also making sure each verse works with the rest of scripture allows for much more clear understanding.

>>can you rephrase your translation of in the future tense<<

I'm not sure why that would be necessary. If I say something "exists" the term could mean past present or future. Or it could mean all three at the same time. It would just depend on when I am talking about it "existing".

If your talking about John 20:23 there is no change nor does there need to be. If we understand that man is not who forgives sin we must conclude that it is not they who initiated that forgiveness or retention. I believe it's inconceivable that God would turn over to the carnal mind of man the ability to forgive or retain the sin of others.

John 20:23 If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

In Matthew 16:19 it would read like this.

Matthew 16:19 and I will give to thee the keys of the reign of the heavens, and whatever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall exist bound in the heavens, and whatever thou mayest loose upon the earth shall exist loosed in the heavens.

Using the literal meaning of the word which indicates exists "with no time limits" we would be presumptuous to conclude like the Catholics do that we initiated that "exists". If we take the position that everything was preordained we would have to know that those declaration had already existed in heaven. If we take the position that in heaven there is no time we would still have to acknowledge that it probably existed.

What I do is attempt to keep the ancient Greek meanings first rather then inject current thought or understanding. I always keep in mind that it's God who has everything in mind and initiates rather than man.

Even Peter did not claim to have the power to forgive sins.

Acts 8:22 Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord in the hope that he may forgive you for having such a thought in your heart.

Had He understood Jesus words to mean he did have that power he would have said that he would forgive the sin. Not once in scripture do that apostles put themselves in the position of forgiving sins. If we take John 20:23 to mean that man can forgive sins it contradicts the rest of scripture. The apostles all claimed Christ had the power to forgive sins and not once claimed that power for themselves.

I believe it's inconceivable that God would turn over to the carnal mind of man the ability to forgive or retain the sin of others.

You're switching your arguments. Your original point was as follows:

>>Here’s my question. How does the phrase “and whose sins you retain are retained” fit into that testimony?<<

So let's conclude our discussion of the Greek text and then move on to interesting opinions.

Your point is twofold:

1. Catholics translated a word as "will be" or "are"

2. It should be translated as "I am".

There is a problem with each of your claims.

1. Catholics translate this word the same as Protestants.

The King James Bible (like most Protestant bibles) uses "are forgiven" in John 20:23, just like the RSV Catholic bible. Similary, they both use "shall be" in Matthew 16:19.

2. The words at issue are different and neither of them is in the first person singular.

The word in John is ἀφέωνται, which is the perfect 3rd person plural of forgive. You'd need a better more subtle argument to show that this meant something different to Greeks than "if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" would mean to a reader of the Catholic RSV or the King James Bible, and since you claim that Catholics have translated it wrong, you should also suggest a better and more correct translation.

The word in Matthew is ἔσται, the future 3rd person singular of verb to be. It is neither in the present tense as you suggested nor is it in the first person as you suggested.

If the word has no time limits (as you later stated) then what is the difference between the present tense Εστι and the future tense ἔσται?

Since it makes no sense to suggest that the word "to be" would have a present tense and a future tense but both of them would mean existence "without time limits" I would like to ask you to support the following claim with a link to a scholarly source:

"the literal meaning of the word ... indicates exists "with no time limits""

>>If the word has no time limits (as you later stated) then what is the difference between the present tense Εστι and the future tense ἔσται?<<

The difference is when He is talking about it existing. That doesn't mean it didn't exist prior not does it mean it will cease to exist.

>>You're switching your arguments.<<

No, and that wasn't my intent. I simply made a comment of how the overall meaning of scripture must fit with all verses and used that verse to illustrate that it doesn't comport to the rest of scripture if taken to mean that men were being given authority to forgive sins.

>>"the literal meaning of the word ... indicates exists "with no time limits""<<

That comes from Strong's and many others.

1510 (eimí), and its counterparts, (properly) convey "straight-forward" being (existence, i.e. without explicit limits). [http://biblehub.com/greek/1510.htm]

Look, if you insist that the apostles and some succession from them have the power to forgive sins and need that for your belief structure nothing I say will change that.

Look, if you insist that the apostles and some succession from them have the power to forgive sins and need that for your belief structure nothing I say will change that.

I'll accept that as a concession that your argument around the translation was erroneous. What we have learned:

1. Catholics and Protestants generally translate John 20:23 and Matthew 16:19 the same way, so your claim that Catholics have mistranslated it to support their claims regarding Apostolic Succession has failed.

2. Your main point, and even your grasping at straws argument that the use of the future tense "doesn't mean it didn't exist prior not does it mean it will cease to exist" ignores the fact that the word in Scripture is in the future tense. There's meaning in that fact. The exact words used in Scripture matter. You initially denied the meaning by claiming the word wasn't in the future tense but when that was shown to be false you switched your claim to say that the use of the future tense doesn't mean anything. Words in Scripture matter so this argument also fails.

3. You fabricated the quote int he following sentence:

the literal meaning of the word ... indicates exists "with no time limits"

The actual quote is existence "without explicit limits". You inserted the word "time" between quotes to change the meaning from simply "to be" as opposed to "to be tall" or "to be late", i.e. existence without explicit limits, to existence without past present or future, which makes no sense for a verb that has a past tense, a present tense and a future tense.

So after a lot of close reading we are left with nothing other than your opinion that "I believe it's inconceivable that God would turn over to the carnal mind of man the ability to forgive or retain the sin of others" and "Look, if you insist that the apostles and some succession from them have the power to forgive sins and need that for your belief structure nothing I say will change that."

Those are both interesting arguments, but Sola Scriptura they are not.

>>I'll accept that as a concession that your argument around the translation was erroneous.<<

You can "accept" whatever you wish to conjure up or create in order to soothe some need. That doesn't however make it so.

>>Catholics and Protestants<<

Protestants denominations retain many of the errors of the Catholic Church from whence they came. I simply took the literal meaning of the ancient Greek words.

>>Your main point, and even your grasping at straws argument that the use of the future tense "doesn't mean it didn't exist prior not does it mean it will cease to exist" ignores the fact that the word in Scripture is in the future tense.<<

Yeah, and the sun will be hot next year also.

>>You fabricated the quote int he following sentence:<<

You out yourself. Had you actually been interesting in learning the truth you would have actually gone to investigate the true meaning of the word. From the same site I gave you.

1510 /eimí ("is, am") – in the present tense, indicative mood – can be time-inclusive ("omnitemporal," like the Hebrew imperfect tense). Only the context indicates whether the present tense also has "timeless" implications. For example, 1510 (eimí) is aptly used in Christ's great "I am" (ego eimi . . . ) that also include His eternality (self-existent life) as our life, bread, light," etc. See Jn 7:34, 8:58, etc. [http://biblehub.com/greek/1510.htm]

Had you actually been interested in the truth you would have gone to the site to see that it does indeed include concept of time. Instead you chose to accuse me of "fabricating".

>>So after a lot of close reading<<

I think I just illustrated how much "close reading" you have done. Make up whatever you wish edwinland.

I think we ahve arrived at the source of your confusion. It would have been helpful if you posted that paragraph to begin with.

Your reading of the passages at issue is not correct for two reasons.

1. Neither John 20:23 nor Matthew 16:19 contains εἰμί ("is, am"). John contains ἀφέωνται and Matthew has ἔσται.

2. Neither ἀφέωνται nor ἔσται is in the "present tense, indicative mood" referred to in the passage you cited from Strong's. ἀφέωνται is in the perfect tense, indicative mood and ἔσται as we previously established, is in the future tense, indicative mood".

So for two independent reasons the paragraph you cited is not relevant to these passages.

Having established that error, I'd like to say that everyone can make a mistake and it's easy indeed to make one in ancient Greek.

But my more serious advice, which is relevant to your starting out position in many of these debates, is this:

1. Please don't assume that any time you disagree with the Catholics, it's because we didn't read the Bible and you did. We do read it. And sometimes people who read it come to different conclusions about what it means. That's what discussions are for, and by the way, that's one of the things Catholics believe the Magisterium is for.

2. Don't assume that every position of the Catholic Church that you disagree with involves "fantasies and made up history" of the Catholic Church (as you previoulsy put it) when in fact many of the interpretations you dispute are common to many if not most of the universal Christian Churches.

3. Don't put phrases that are not quotes between quote marks. That's really not cool. When you say that the literal meaning of the word ... indicates exists "with no time limits" the quote marks should mean you are quoting someone other than yourself. Not paraphrasing. Quoting.

>>Neither ἀφέωνται nor ἔσται is in the "present tense, indicative mood" referred to in the passage you cited from Strong's. ἀφέωνται is in the perfect tense, indicative mood and ἔσται as we previously established, is in the future tense, indicative mood".<<

What part of "can be time inclusive" do you not understand? Even the base word "can be time inclusive". All forms of the word then would include "can be time inclusive".

1510 /eimí ("is, am") – in the present tense, indicative mood – can be time-inclusive ("omnitemporal," like the Hebrew imperfect tense). Only the context indicates whether the present tense also has "timeless" implications. For example, 1510 (eimí) is aptly used in Christ's great "I am" (ego eimi . . . ) that also include His eternality (self-existent life) as our life, bread, light," etc. See Jn 7:34, 8:58, etc. [http://biblehub.com/greek/1510.htm]

The phrase "the sun "will be" hot next year does NOT exclude the fact that the sun has always been hot.

None of that changes anything I said. ἔσται is simply a form of the base word εἰμί. Trying to limit the words to fit the Catholic need doesn't work. The "will be" is still an injected meaning.

Incorrect again. ἔσται is not just any form of the verb; it's the future tense. Hence Catholics and Protestants alike translated it as "will be" or "shall be" ... in the future. Because it's in the future tense.

Even Strong's which you cited translates it as "will be" and says that it is in the future tense. Because it is in the future tense.

http://biblehub.com/grammar/v-fim-3s.htm

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/16-19.htm

Have you heard of the Tyndale Bible? Here's what Wiki says about it. I'll put it in quotes because it's a quote:

"Tyndale's translation was the first English Bible to draw directly from Hebrew and Greek texts, the first English one to take advantage of the printing press, and first of the new English Bibles of the Reformation. It was taken to be a direct challenge to the hegemony of both the Roman Catholic Church and the laws of England to maintain the church's position."

Doesn't sound like Tyndale was "Trying to limit the words to fit the Catholic need" to me. So how did he translate Matthew 16:19? Let's have a look. Again I'll use quote marks around the quote:

"And I wyll geve vnto the the keyes of the kyngdom of heven: and whatsoever thou byndest vpon erth shall be bounde in heven: and whatsoever thou lowsest on erthe shalbe lowsed in heven."

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.