Posted on 01/02/2017 4:25:11 AM PST by BlessedBeGod
I hear ya!!
As regards the oft-quoted Mt. 16:18, note the following bishops promise in the profession of faith of Vatican 1:
• Basil of Seleucia, Oratio 25:
'You are Christ, Son of the living God.'...Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter,' perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.' To whom be glory and power forever. — Oratio XXV.4, M.P.G., Vol. 85, Col. 296-297.
• Bede, Matthaei Evangelium Expositio, 3:
You are Peter and on this rock from which you have taken your name, that is, on myself, I will build my Church, upon that perfection of faith which you confessed I will build my Church by whose society of confession should anyone deviate although in himself he seems to do great things he does not belong to the building of my Church...Metaphorically it is said to him on this rock, that is, the Saviour which you confessed, the Church is to be built, who granted participation to the faithful confessor of his name. — 80Homily 23, M.P.L., Vol. 94, Col. 260. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen, Footnote #204, p. 156 [unable to verify by me].
• Cassiodorus, Psalm 45.5:
'It will not be moved' is said about the Church to which alone that promise has been given: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' For the Church cannot be moved because it is known to have been founded on that most solid rock, namely, Christ the Lord. — Expositions in the Psalms, Volume 1; Volume 51, Psalm 45.5, p. 455
• Chrysostom (John) [who affirmed Peter was a rock, but here not the rock in Mt. 16:18]:
Therefore He added this, 'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. — Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily LIIl; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LII.html)
• Cyril of Alexandria:
When [Peter] wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' Jesus said to divine Peter: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Now by the word 'rock', Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple.”. — Cyril Commentary on Isaiah 4.2.
• Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII):
“For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, 1 Corinthians 10:4 and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.'
“For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters.” — Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII), sect. 10,11 ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101612.htm)
• Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II): Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter's mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God. On it we can base an answer to every objection with which perverted ingenuity or embittered treachery may assail the truth."-- (Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II), para 23; Philip Schaff, editor, The Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers Series 2, Vol 9.
Law; huh...
Must trump ACTS 15.
--Jesus
“...leaving you as one who is one of many elitist splinters who are even contrary to past papal teaching and above all, to the NT church as revealed in Scripture...”
————————————+++————————————
Where in the Sacred Scriptures is a cult mocked for being tiny?
“...May God yet grant you repentance unto the acknowledge (sic) of the Truth of Scripture, versus your fantasies (sic)”
————————————+++————————————
OK, OK, let me humor you for a moment and pretend to be insane at the same time: Suppose Mary is as unimportant as you and your sect would have us believe. Why, let’s even imagine for a minute that she is no more than a piece of cloth at the very bottom of a garment. (end of insane moment: here)
As you know, a woman sought a cure from Jesus one day.
We read in ST. MATTHEW - Chapter 9
20 *And behold a woman who was troubled with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment.
21 For she said within herself: If I shall only touch his garment, I shall be healed.
22 But Jesus turning about, and seeing her, said: Take courage, daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour.
If you, however, were alive in the time of Jesus you would stand apart with the pharisees and ridicule the woman who “worshipped the hem of Jesus’ garment instead of going to Jesus directly”, I am certain.
I’ll stick with Jeus’ response:
“Take courage, daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole.”
Oh, and by the way, if the Catholic priest is not to be found in Sacred Scriptures, using the same logic, where in the Sacred Scripture are Catholics ridiculed for worshipping Mary? If you cannot find it in Sacred Scripture than one is to be ridiculed for imagining it to be possible by your logic.
“Law; huh...”
Modern title for Protestant: “Ridiculant”.
That works well.
“Call no man father”
—Jesus
Elsie,
Please comment on Saint Paul’s use of the term as illustrated in prior post:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3509997/posts?page=1108#1108
Was Saint Paul just being a good Catholic? Or does Elsie understand Jesus better than Saint Paul does?
So; you applaud those who IMAGINE things; eh?
2 Corinthians 10:5 (KJV)
Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
But did you have to nuke the entire FR site?!:)
Man could not and would not believe on the Lord Jesus or follow Him unless God gave him life, and breath, and all good things he has, (Acts 17:25) and convicted him, (Jn. 16:8) drew him, (Jn. 6:44; 12:32) opened his heart, (Acts 16:14) and granted repentance (Acts 11:18) and gave faith, (Eph. 2:8,9) and then worked in him both to will and to do of His good pleasure the works He commands them to do. (Phil. 2:13; Eph. 2:10)
Thus man owes to God all things, and while he is guilty and rightly damned for resisting God contrary to the level of grace given him, (Prov. 1:20-31; Lk. 10:13; 12:48; Rv. 20:11-15) man can not claim he actually deserves anything, and God does not owe him anything but damnation, except that under grace which denotes unmerited favor God has chosen to reward faith, (Heb. 10:35) in recognition of its effects.
Which means that God justifies man without the merit of any works, which is what Romans 4:1-7ff teaches, with works of the law including all systems of justification by merit of works, for, if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. (Galatians 3:21)
Thus the penitent publican and the contrite criminal, both of whom abased themselves as damned and destitute sinner and cast all their faith upon the mercy of God (which ultimately is Christ), were justified, and as such could go directly to be with the Lord at death, even before they did any manifest works of faith. But works justify one as being a believer, and fit to be rewarded under grace for such, (Mt. 25:30-40; Rv. 3:4) though only because God has decided to reward man for what God Himself is actually to be credited for. However, while God rewards one for what he did in faith, (He. 10:35) this effect is not the actual cause of his salvation, as if one could become good enough to be with God (not even Adam was or an infant is, but all is grace).
Yet in Roman Catholicism one is formally (the reality that makes it what it is) justified (causa formalis) by his interior righteousness "infused" via the act itself of baptism (ex opere operato. Trent teaches infused righteousness as the single formal cause, the unica causa formalis, and which means that, other things being basically equal, baptized Caths from youth up ought to overall manifest the profound transformative effects that mark the evangelical conversions of Catholics, and others, but they do not) , at which point he is consider to be good enough to directly go to be with God is he/she dies immediately after baptism. Yet since such sins afterward, and manifests character faults and attachment to sin then they must (unless they die as "saints" who are perfect enough to directly go to be with the Lord at death) later spend an indeterminate time in RC (the Orthodox differ) "Purgatory" (from Latin, "purgare," to make clean, to purify) until they become good enough (and atone for sins) “through fire and torments or purifying punishments” (Indulgentiarum Doctrina; cp. 1. 1967) to enter Heaven:
In following the Gospel exhortation to be perfect like the heavenly Father (cf. Mt 5:48)...because the encounter with God requires absolute purity. Every trace of attachment to evil must be eliminated, every imperfection of the soul corrected. Purification must be complete..." "This is exactly what takes place in Purgatory." — John Paul II, Audiences, 1999; http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/audiences/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_04081999.html
". ..we will go to Purgatory first, and then to Heaven after we are purged of all selfishness and bad habits and character faults" — Peter Kreeft, Because God Is Real: Sixteen Questions, One Answer, p. 224
Purgatory is the state, after death, where souls who are not yet perfected in their love for God, are purified before admittance to the all holy God. (Fr. Frank Sofie, Purgatory)
"..the lapsable [imperfect believers] are destined to but have not yet attained this moral perfection of their natures....Purgation is thus the means by which the Christian’s inherent moral condition “catches up” to his unpenalizable status, purchased by Christ, before the tribunal of God." (Neal Judisch, Sanctification, Satisfaction, and the Purpose of Purgatory; www.baylor.edu/content/services/...php/79699.docx)
Which was not what was preached by the NT church, but developed later. Augustine "describes two conditions of men; "some there are who have departed this life, not so bad as to be deemed unworthy of mercy, nor so good as to be entitled to immediate happiness." - City of God XXI.24).
The logic here seems sound if escape from Hell and being with God was actually attained by how good one was, versus such faith as evidences obedience being imputed for righteousness, but the latter is what is Scriptural, not the former.
It is because faith is imputed for righteousness that Abraham was counted as righteous, even though at that point there was no actual practical change in his character or nature.
And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness. (Genesis 15:5-6)
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, (Romans 4:3-6)
Later on (Gn. 22) Abraham would be justified by works as regards justifying him as having true faith, since inert faith that will not effect works is dead, but as RCs allow in baptism by desire, God sees what kind of faith is in one before a believer acts, with both faith in the heart and its outward expression justifying one in their proper senses. If one truly believes in the heart then he is accounted righteousness, and will confess the Lord Jesus in word and in deed, and thus salvation is promised to those who do so. /p>
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Romans 10:9-10)
And due to this imputation, souls could be justified even before regenerated via Christian baptism was instituted (as in Catholics imagination), as in the case of Abraham as well as the thief on the cross. (Lk. 23) For,
The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit. (Psalms 34:18)
Catholics try to explain how the so-called "good thief" could directly go to be with the Lord at death by asserting that the contrite criminal accomplished on the cross the sufferings that were required due to his sins and so "there remained no further need for any purgation" (http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage_print.asp?number=309713&language=en) However, besides the separate fallacy that believers must atone for sins after death, purgatory is also said to be necessary to perfect character, as shown above. Yet in addition to the reality that one's inherent moral condition is not purged at baptism (nor does that act itself effect regeneration), mere suffering cannot produce perfection of character and of the soul, for this requires testings and trials in which there is an alternative to obedience, which only this life is shown to provide. And which is the only realm Scripture speaks wherein believers grow in spiritual maturity..
After this life, the only manifest expectation of any real transformative change is that of the resurrection at the return of the Lord Jesus. (1Cor. 15:35ff; Phil. 1:21-23; 1Jn. 3:2)
And at which point Scripture teaches that all true believers shall" ever be with the Lord," (1Thes. 4:17) or at death, whatever comes first. (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”])
And at which time is the judgment seat of Christ, (1Cor. 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev.11:18; Mt. 25:31-46; 1Pt. 1:7; 5:4) at which time (1Co. 3;8ff) is the only suffering after this life for believers, that of suffering the loss of rewards (the the grievous displeasure of the Lord) due to the corruptible manner of workmanship used to build the church. Which one is saved despite of, not because of.
Therefore, the position that the contrite criminal attained that perfection in a few hours or so on the cross is simply untenable, as is that the newly converted have attained this condition of maturity as well.
Moreover, i have found that the natural disposition of man is to presume that his hope of salvation is based upon his degree of goodness, even if the work of Christ somewhat ambiguously factors in, and which the overeactive emphasis in Catholic teaching on meriting eternal life fosters, leading to such ideas as this:
I feel when my numbers up I will appoach a large table and St.Peter will be there with an enormous scale of justice by his side. We will see our life in a movie...the things that we did for the benefit of others will be for the plus side of the scale..the other stuff,,not so good will..well, be on the negative side..and so its a very interesting job Pete has. I wonder if he pushes a button for the elevator down for the losers...and what .sideways for those heading for purgatory..the half way house....lets wait and see.... ” http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=4098202&postcount=2
How do you think the average Catholic would understand:
"nothing further is wanting to the justified [baptized and faithful], to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life." (Trent, Chapter XVI; The Sixth Session Decree on justification, 1547)
Canon 32 similarly states, "If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema." (Trent, Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 32. Also see The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1919 ed., Decree on Justification, Chapters V, VI, VII, X, XIV, XV, XVI) (emphasis mine)
Shortened, this teaches, "If anyone says that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God does not truly merit eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself, let him be anathema."
While "accounted to have...merited" can refer to God judging one to have true justifying faith in the light of his works and thus graciously rewarding him for such, (Mt. 25:34-40) the natural disposition of man is to think his good deeds versus bad actually gain him eternal life, even if with some mercy due to the death of Christ is combined with it.
Such has escaped coming to God as a damned sinner who destitute of anything that will enable him to escape Hell and gain Heaven, and so must abased him self and cast all his trust in the crucified and risen Son of God to save Him one His account and expense, by His sinless shed blood, and so accept and ask this Lord Jesus to save him, and so follow Him!
May all do so, and day by day walk in that obedient faith.
We don’t have to *co-operate* with God’s grace. There’s not a thing in Scripture that indicates that.
And yes, religious activities are works. They are things you do to get something in return.
Grace is grace, freely given, LAVISHED on us, and not gained by performance.
If it’s connected to actions or activities we do, then it’s wages due for work performed, which completely negates it as being grace.
*In times of health*???
Is that supposed to be an answer?
What exactly is a time of health?
And when do you get to decide when that time is?
But that’s interesting. So the Holy spirit DOESN’T guide the college of cardinals in selecting the new pope.
Then it’s just a man thing, popular opinion or the good old boy network.
So if the Holy Spirit isn’t guiding the church in the selection of the new pope, then just how is the church supposedly being protected from error in faith and morals?
Where is that protection coming from then?
Show us where Paul addressed anyone by the title of *Father* or was addressed that way as *Father Paul*.
The command of Jesus didn’t say that you couldn’t consider yourself a spiritual father in some sense.
It says *Call no man Father*. He is talking about addressing religious leaders by that title, which is EXACTLY what Catholics do with their priests.
BUt It constantly amazes me, the mental gymnastics Catholics will go through to justify and excuse away their disobedience to a clear concise command of Jesus.
Yup. Can't have any of that freedom in Christ stuff you know.
People might actually start thinking for themselves and you know where that could lead.
Sometimes ridicule is appropriate. Even God ridicules His enemies. So ridicule in itself is neutral. But I agree with you it can be overused, like anything else. I can’t tell you how many times conversations here have devolved into mindless ridicule fests. That’s usually when I bail out.
As for the term protestant, it was assigned to us by our opponents. The German evangelicals had been promised some relief in the persecutions, but when the persecution continued, they protested. Silly protest-ants, complaining about their inability to worship freely.
The hilarity is, with what’s going on in your own denomination (and yes it is a de facto schism), every one of you complaining against some element of your hierarchy is the beneficiary of the blood spilled by those ‘complainers’ who went before you. The freedoms you enjoy right now were not always there. You should be giving honor, not disrespect, dare I say ridicule, to those who paid the ultimate price for obedience to their conscience before God.
Peace,
SR
You’ve managed to miss the essence of HIS teaching: “Our cooperation with God’s work in us through the Sacraments is what saves.” If this were true, why did Jesus fail to tell Nicodemus this when He used the example of faith regarding the snake on the pole in the Wilderness? You’ve managed to swallow the twist that Satan wants for that example, as if looking at the snake on the pole is a work to which God is obligated to respond. Jesus gave Nic that example of aith, you would make it a work of righteousness, which it most definitely was not. Your stealthy twist, as if the way you put it it is not working but cooperating. That is not faith it is self aggrandizement.
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.