Posted on 04/25/2015 10:33:08 AM PDT by RnMomof7
I'm going to transcribe an article that Jerry Walls wrote when he was a grad student at Notre Dame:
You are the second Protestant here to acknowledge that Protestant interpreters of Scripture are just men, and that their interpretations of Scripture are not infallible.
Yes, I understand you believe this to be true of the pope as well.
But if you believe the Bible to be historically accurate, and if you believe that Jesus is God, then you must believe that Peter and the Apostles (and their successors in office) have indisputable teaching authority.
"...which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." --St. PaulThe Church has the power to "bind and loose." What does this phrase mean?"If he won't listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector." --Jesus
"Binding and loosing is an originally Jewish phrase which appears in the New Testament, as well as in the Targum. In usage to bind and to loose mean simply to forbid by an indisputable authority, and to permit by an indisputable authority." --WikipediaJesus affirms the teaching authority of the Pharisees (their power to "bind and loose.")"Under Queen Alexandra, the Pharisees, says Josephus, "became the administrators of all public affairs so as to be empowered to banish and readmit whom they pleased, as well as to loose and to bind." --Jewish Encyclopedia
The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do." --Jesus
Jesus, to Peter:
"And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. --JesusJesus to the Apostles:
Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. --Jesus+ + +
Jesus does not ascribe the power of "binding and loosing" to Scripture.
+ + +
Petrine primacy and Apostolic teaching authority did not end with the deaths of Peter and the Apostles:
Apostolic Succession (Acts 1:20 KJB)"For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take."
St. Irenaeus
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).
Tertullian
"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).
Acts 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9 And put no difference between us and them,
**the Bible warns us of following traditions of men.**
Reads like that is your opus and you are leaving Rome!
Proof required for your statement or you pull it and admit you are wrong.
Surely a GOOD Catholic like yourself knows priests DO NOT TAKE A VOW OF CHASTITY??
You church saved that vow for the little women that become nuns.. can't have them having sex can we ??
But priests take a vote of celibacy ...ummm that allows a little room to play around huh?
No.. I don't have to believe that any successors of the Apostles have indisputable teaching....Peter was an apostle right along with the others I do not give him the position catholics do...nor will I.
As for binding and loosening the authority of the Pharisees was the very thing which Jesus spoke against...so that carries no weight regarding the matter today.
The Pope and Luther were just men....as were those you referenced further in your post........We have the Spirit of Christ to teach us... we have Gods very Word who guides us, active and powerful....We also have 'fellowship' with other believers and learnered men that we share and discuss these matters we choose....but none of them have the authority of God thru Christ and His written Word, and that of the Spirit he has given us to “guide us into all truth”.
It would do you well to put a whole lot more emphasis on what God says over the men of history so often referenced.
Protestantism has the fallible teaching of men.
It's difficult for Catholics to see what Protestantism offers that Christ's Church doesn't already offer.
The Protestant "Reformation" was really the "Protestant Revolution," that took Christendom backwards into a Dark Age of Error.
Context is significant for 'all'....the problem becomes then how one applies it thereafter.
Catholics by nature will always “apply” scripture ‘to’ their traditions and dogma rather than allow scripture context to stand on it's own in order to ‘test’ their tradition and dogma.....there is a difference .....
.... So they cannot not know the truth 'as it is' because, for them, it must always be filtered thru their magesterium, their traditions etc. so they will always come up wanting, and is why they "feed themselves" further on historical authors etc., occupying themselves with rituals and various other distractions in order not to feel that emptiness.....never satisfied.
..... It's just the opposite of what God would have them 'do' to know the 'fullness' He would otherwise give them.
That's exactly, BTW, what Luther eventually found out for himself.
....”It’s difficult for Catholics to see what Protestantism offers that Christ’s Church doesn’t already offer”....
Well your mistake is thinking that ‘Protestantism’ is the alternative...it’s not the answer you need. Your own writings reflect that you’re arguing between the two “organizations” as if each has their own specific set of rules and beliefs one must adhere to and each laying claim to Christ.
What is central , rather than as you wrote, is.... Catholics have a Church they rely on...Christians have Christ as the only authority by which any man can rely on for truth and or salvation.
And ME!
And the COUNTER Reformation.
What was that?
Oh my, you post the favorite Mormon diversion, but do you really know of whom Jesus was referring with His statement about their fruits? ... False prophets, like the one at the heart of Mormonism. It seems every Mormonism apologist at FR uses that incorrectly applied passage. It must be a Mormon thing ...
Which is a judicial part of the binding and loosing power while the spiritual aspect extends to all righteous believers (Mt. 18:18,19; Ja. 5:16-18) which is not new in principal, but flows from the OT in which (as pertains to the judicial aspect)
If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God shall choose; And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment: (Deuteronomy 17:8,9)
And Westminster affirms,
It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..." (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm)
The question is whether dissent from which is ever justified, or when and why did they become excluded?
And when and why did employing the sword of men to punish theological dissent become sanctioned by Scripture?
And thank God for attempt at your civil demeanor.
Certainly the physical infirmities need prayer, but the Lord reproved the Jewish leaders for their false doctrines, the beauty of the liturgy and traditions notwithstanding, as if not Scriptural then they are ugly to God.
the priestly tradition, the beauty of Mary and her answer; the papacy.
Yet none of them is Scriptural: There simply is not even on NT pastors (besides Christ) who is ever given the distinctive title of hiereus (priest from preost), but they are only called presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) whiich denotes on office. (Titus 1:5-7)
Nor are any ever shown changing bread into human flesh and or dispensing it to others in order to obtain spiritual life. But instead of dispensing bread as part of their ordained function the primary work of NT pastors is that of prayer and preaching. (Act 6:3,4) "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine." (2 Timothy 4:2) More .
And while I am sure while the only Queen of Heaven in Scripture was beautiful, the Mary of Catholicism is not that of Scripture, with the multitude of virtues powers and position which parallel Christ, and are unique to Him, and Scripture knows nothing of the uncensored adulation of Catholics, including popes, such as
an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,
whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,
who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"
and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain affinity with the Heavenly Father,"
and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"
for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"
"surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"
so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."
and that sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"
for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"
Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"
and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"
including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"
whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"
and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"
and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation." Sources and more.
Nor does Scripture teach perpetual assured infallibility of church office as per Rome, or as necessary for preservation of truth, nor that that Peter was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 upon which the church is built, interpreting Mt. 16:18, rather than upon the rock of the faith confessed by Peter, thus Christ Himself.
Or that all the churches looked to Peter as the bishop of Rome as the first of a line of supreme heads reigning over all the churches, and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church.
Nor did it ever record or teach any apostolic successors (like for James: Acts 12:1,2) after Judas who was to maintain the original 12: Rv. 21:14) or that any apostolic successors were elected by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff) Instead, presbuteros were made overseers of the church. (Act 20:28)
Not so, as souls look for the interpretation of what is officially said by how the preachers of it explain it and translate it into actions, and Christ and James taught that what one does and effects constitutes the evidence of what one really believes. (Mt. 7:20; 23; Ja. 2:18)
The scribes and Pharisees could deny that they would kill the OT prophet as their fathers did, but they testified otherwise by their words and actions.
And RCs in particular have been taught that
"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),
And every time Rome honors a Teddy K//Menino publicly known liberal RC as a member in life and in death then it effectually teaches how it understands canon law. And such treatment also implicitly conveys to the average liberal RC that he/she is OK with Rome. And the liberal revisionism taught for decades in Rome own officially sanctioned Bible interprets past statements to the contrary.
V2 interpreted historical teaching that damned Prots as meaning properly baptized SS faithful Prots were part of the body of Christ, and Francis giving the high five to evangelical tells others that this is how RC teaching is to be understood.
TradRCs who reject the above based upon their understanding of historical RC teaching, even if they are correct, are charged with being Prots, since they do not follow the leaders as they are, but instead rely upon their interpretation of their supreme source for what Truth is, even though they censure Prots for doing the same.
That is the problem with sola ecclesia, in which the church is the supreme authority rather than unchanging Scripture, for when the leadership of the former goes South, either in requiring extermination of heretics or going soft on immorality or liberal teaching, then the laity overall follows.
In contrast, those who hold most strongly to the authority of Scripture as literally being the wholly inspired and accurate word of God are the most conservative.
But it does indeed matter what kind of vows are broken.
But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the Lord shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her. (Numbers 30:5)
But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it; then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect: and the Lord shall forgive her. (Numbers 30:8)
No vow which is contrary to Scripture - which requiring clerical celibacy (save for certain converts) is, an which presumes all have that gift - is, has already been disallowed by God the Father and Christ for His church.
If you want to try to argue with me that clerical celibacy was required and normal for the apostles and NT church, then go ahead.
Yes you also have Catholic charities:
Catholic Relief Services gave over $13 million to pro-abortion group in 2012
How Catholic Charities Lost Its Soul
Catholic Charitiesand the same could be said about the Association of Jewish Family and Children's Agencies or the Lutheran Services in Americahas become over the last three decades an arm of the welfare state, with 65 percent of its $2.3 billion annual budget now flowing from government sources and little that is explicitly religious, or even values-laden, about most of the services its 1,400 member agencies and 46,000 paid employees provide. http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=758
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.