Login  | |
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/11/2009 9:47:06 AM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 969
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
MANIMAL WROTE:
quote:
I keep bypassing the recent presentations of this ridiculously erroneous notion of the authority to "bind and loose" being "given" to the Apostles….”
It’s in Mt 16:19.
quote:
because the words as written mean what they mean regardless of how many centuries your denomination has ignored, denied, or twisted them!
I don’t think the Catholic Church is a denomination. I see “Catholic Church” as a shorter term for Mk 11:17: “house of prayer for all nations”.
quote:
"But the matter is not quite so simple; the actions described in heaven are future perfect passives - which could be translated "will have already been bound in heaven..."
I think that's why even the wicked Popes--like Pope Alexander 6th--did not define false doctrine.
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 11/11/2009 11:22:52 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/11/2009 11:04:46 AM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 444
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
ManimalX
quote:
I keep bypassing the recent presentations of this ridiculously erroneous notion of the authority to "bind and loose" being "given" to the Apostles, and it needs to be addressed.
You also keep bypassing my post where I use scripture to show the practice of ordination by imposition of hands. Why not address this one as well? I believe you called it “stupid magical powers” and “laughable magic rituals”. I even showed how the sola-scriptura authors of the WCF use the bible to justify the same practice. Do you still consider this biblical practice of the Jewish people, the Apostles, and the Church to be some superstitious magical ritual or can we assume by your silence that you’ve had a change of heart?
quote:
Since my Roman brothers and sisters here have no regard or respect for the word of a mere hell-bound "commoner" protester, Don’t condemn yourself – we certainly aren’t! It’s not that we don’t respect your word, we just acknowledge it as your personal interpretation of scripture. Or perhaps more accurately, the interpretation of people under whom you are studying. We have a much higher regard for the Pillar and Foundation of Truth than what is being taught by modern-day scholars and on-line courses.
I’ve never heard of Mounce or Keener. Perhaps these modern-day scholars are much more knowledgeable in ancient Greek language and culture than the early Church or the Hellenized Jews. Either way, thank you for the post. It backs up what I said earlier. “Bind and loose” is a Jewish idiom used to describe authority granted to interpret Jewish law. This authority included interpretation of The Law (that’s written scripture), as well as rabbinic law, customs, and traditions (that’s what is handed down by “word of mouth” (as Paul puts it)). Kelman claimed that “bind and loose” meant “making up a bunch of silly rules”. I corrected him about 900 posts ago.
The author’s understanding of “bind and loose” seems spot on, however, the conclusions gloss over what Jesus actually did and said. He very specifically granted this authority to his Apostles. The author however makes a giant leap by assuming this same authority is granted to all Christians. We begin to see evidence of this erroneous understanding about 1500 years later, when Christians rejected this unique authority Jesus granted to his Apostles to protect His Church and new self-proclaimed authorities arose. It started as one “new foundation” but very quickly spread to many “new foundations”.
Here is an excerpt from way back in post #6376:
quote:
The significance of “bind and loose” should not be underestimated – there’s no “so to speak” about it. Jesus is very clearly granting a special authority. The idiom is from our Jewish ancestors in faith and was used to describe authority granted to interpret Jewish law. This Law included the Torah, as well as rabbinic law, customs, and traditions. The Rabbis entrusted to interpret the written Torah (scripture) and oral Torah (tradition) were said to bind (prohibit) and loose (allow). The person acting in this capacity was said to be seated in the chair of Moses. In order for someone to be in a position to bind and loose, they had to be “semicha’d” by their mentor Rabbi as I explained a couple paragraphs back.
So let’s piece this together in Mt 16:16-20. The Apostles are learning at the feet of Rabbi Yeshua for three years. God reveals to Simon exactly who Jesus is. Jesus changes Simons name to Kepha (a very clear indication of a new calling). He says on this Kepha I will build my Church. He promises the gates of hell will never prevail against it. He quotes from Is 22:22 and grants Kepha the keys to the Kingdom. Kepha’s new role is that of the “al-bayit”, a perpetual office of the eternal Kingdom. He grants Kepha the power to “bind and loose”. Kepha now sits in the seat of Moses when he interprets sacred scripture and sacred tradition. Kepha has now been “semicha’d”, something he in turn will also do for those who learn from him.
Understood in the proper Jewish context, we see here:
- An office granted to Peter (“al-bayit”, prime minister of the Kingdom, earthly leader of the universal church)
- An expectation that this office will be perpetually filled as the office of “al-bayit” was in the Davidic Kingdom (Successors to Peter)
- An expectation that Peter will “semicha” others (Apostolic Succession)
- That Peter sits in the chair of Moses when ruling on sacred scripture and sacred tradition (ex-Cathedra means “from the chair of” from which we get “the chair of Peter”)
- That Peter is vested with the authority to bind and loose
So there it is. Apostolic Succession, ex-Cathedra binding and loosing, and an earthly leader of the universal church. Straight from scripture. Consistent with the Jewish roots of our faith. Consistent with many writings of the ECFs.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/12/2009 9:53:01 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 969
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
MANIMAL WROTE:
quote:
Since my Roman brothers and sisters here have no regard or respect for the word of a mere hell-bound "commoner" protester,
Manimal....I don't think that about you...
_____________________________________________________________
Here's an interesting quote I found from: Gerhard Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament:
"The obvious pun which has made its way into the Greek text . . . suggests a material identity between petra and Petros . . . as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the two words. . . . Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession. . . . The idea of the Reformers that he is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable. . . . For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of "thou art Rock" and "on this rock I will build" shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected. (Oscar Cullman in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 6, Eerdmans, 98–99, 108)"
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 11/12/2009 11:41:04 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/13/2009 8:39:21 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1191
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: online
|
quote:
Manimal....I don't think that about you...
_____________________________________________________________
Here's an interesting quote I found from: Gerhard Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament:
Manimal - the Catholic Church doesn't think that about you. either...and I don't, as well.
This type of post again gets back to authority. On the one hand, there is a Church with a defined belief and set of practices. One may choose to follow it or not.
On the other hand, there is a forest of varying opinions of people of varying degrees of pedigree, and from this forest, we are to attempt to cobble together some belief and practice from that mountain of chaos, selecting from within it who and what will be believed and practiced, and thereby "self-authorizing" the set of beliefs and practices derived.
In this case, we have a "protestant Scholar". Oh yeah, says who? The Scholar himself? Where did he go to school; who taught him? And who taught his teachers.
Obviously, there are Protestants who will disagree with this particular scholar, because he agrees with the Catholics, which, of course, must be wrong (this is by default with many Protestants because it's been banged into their head from birth by well-meaning but misguided teachers of various sorts). Says who? I can say because he agrees with me, he must be right just as easily as someone else says he must be wrong becuase he doesn't agree with me.
All that can result from self-authorized discernment is chaos. I get told all the time here that "the Holy Spirit will lead one to truth..." And that is a perfectly true and correct statement. But, it is not that the Holy Spirit leads one to truth by whispering interpretations of Koine Greek and techniques of perfect hermeneutics in one's ear.
All the Holy Spirit has to do is lead a soul to the Roman Catholic Church, the Holy Spirit having preserved this institution of Christ for humanity, intact, for 2,000 years.
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/13/2009 10:25:04 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1191
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: online
|
quote:
Not so true at all. Popes have never recalled the doctrines made by the Council of Trent and that Council has claimed that those such as ManimalX according to the things he believes in are "anathema".
..."anathema" does not mean "condemned", nor has it ever. It means "ex-communicate" from the Church. This is only logical in that if the Church teaches something (stop signs are red), and you refuse that instruction (no, stop signs are green), then you have placed yourself in a position of "ex-communicate" with the Church (you are refusing to abide by what the Church teaches, in favor of your own definitions and discernment for the same topics).
Trent is basically defining the instruction of the Church, and stating that there is no room for negotiations on these particular points. If I come to this site, and I deny certain beliefs related to Christianity, or come here to promote Buddhism, then the council of "moderation of this website" can "ex-communicate" me from this website by deleting my username, because violating the TOS for this site can subject one to "anathema", or separation from this site. I am not condemned to hell, only to being seperated from the warmth and friendliness experienced here on these Christian topic discussion threads.
So - when the Catholics define a "TOS" for being Catholic, doing effectively the same thing that this website does, and state that violation of these "TOS" can subject one to being "out of communion" with the Church, somehow it is high treason against God and king.
Baloney. You guys just got it in your head from some erroneous source that "anathema" means "condemned to hell". It doesn't. The Church can't send anyone to hell - only God can do that, and He does it based on choices that people make over which He has given them complete control. The Church can only warn of the consequences and instruct (for those who are interested) the normative path of Christian life.
Who winds up where in the after-life is between the individual and the just judgment of God. However, Jesus left us plenty of instruction as to the normative path to eternal presence with God, and He authorized a Church to defend, define and spread that instruction to the faithful.
Depending on your beliefs, you may be subject to as many as 33 anathemas - see the link HERE. It could be like the Sleep Comfort(TM) bed system - what's your number...?
Just goes to show that you can be Protestant, and have a biting sense of humor, all at the same time...
...go down to the bottom of the page and read the "comments". There is a poor Catholic there trying to explain this very same thing in and amongst the unhappy Protestants posting there. I didn't drill all the way through the comments, so there may be more.
To me, the whole "Catholic Church condemns me" is an easily dismissed strawman. All the Church (any Church...) can do is assist practice (i.e, adminisitering the Sacraments under the authority of Jesus), and instruct - giving fair warning to what Jesus has instructed the consequences are of a life lived on one's own terms, rather than on God's terms.
quote:
If the RCC is so true and full of truth....how do you reconcile the inconsistancies?
As a life-long Catholic, I don't find the inconsistencies that your are conjuring up out of your lack of understanding of the teachings of the Church. If you will take to heart some of what is being posted here, you might find that some of this stuff actually makes sense, even if you cannot bring yourself to even remotely begin to agree with it...
That is the foundation of "mutual respect".
quote:
Roman Catholic doctrines and your personal beliefs are two different things and often times they do not coincide. The question you must ask is if your personal beliefs differ substantially with Roman Catholic doctrines.......you are like Manimal and not a true Roman Catholic.
I am as true a Catholic as I seem to be able to be. The areas in which I am deficient are between me and God, with the Church being the comfort and assistance I require to close the gap between what I am and what God wants me to be...
quote:
A Roman Catholic would adhere to Roman Catholic doctrines such as the Council of Trent and if you do not adhere such doctrines you would be considered a protestant.
A 100% accurate statement, except for recognizing our EO brothers, who actually grab a lot more "ex-Catholics" then Protestants ever thought about grabbing...
Another civil post worthy of a thoughtful response. Perhaps a turning of the tide, much like the changing of the autumn leaves....
By the way, this material was posted by me (and no doubt other Catholics) over 2,500 posts ago, only to fall upon deaf ears. If I get time, I'll go back and add a link for the posts that state this very same thing way back in the dawn of history for this thread...
< Message edited by Doghouse -- 11/13/2009 11:08:20 AM >
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/13/2009 10:52:12 AM
|
|
|
Qtman
Posts: 5740
Joined: 3/21/2006
From: Crimson Tide Country
Status: offline
|
Doghouse is the following quote true? If so then your statement about excommunication and anathema is not correct.
quote:
While "minor excommunication" could be incurred by associating with an excommunicate, and "major excommunication" could be imposed by any bishop, "anathema" was imposed by the Pope in a specific ceremony described in the Pontificale Romanum. Wearing a purple cope (the liturgical color of penitence) and holding a lighted candle, he, surrounded by twelve priests, also with lighted candles, pronounced the anathema with a formula that concluded with the words:
Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive (Name) himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.[5]
emphasis added
_____________________________
Aufmerksamkeit: Es ist verboten, damit Qtman mit stummen Köpfen spricht.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/13/2009 11:25:50 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1191
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: online
|
quote:
we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate,
the Church may judge me to be in a state of ex-communication, and may pronounce the consequences of that state, as she believes and instructs. If I believe and accept the teachings of the Church, and if I recognize an authority of the Church in her teachings, this would probably motivate some self-examination and consideration of the actions and choices that brought the Church to pronounce this state in which I have placed myself.
However, if I do not recognize the authority of the Church, this "judgment" has about as much validity and meaning for me as being named "infidel" by a Muslim.
quote:
so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church;
The out-of-jail card...the Church's "judgment" of ex-communication is not final, as clearly there is hope that a soul would come to his senses and come back into the fold through a proper confession and demonstration of penance.
So this "judgment" is not final. At least while one is not in the grave and can still do something about what the Church takes issue with. And it is in this one little phrase that this becomes not a condemnation, but a warning. "Condemned" is past tense, like "judged". If there is something that can be done about the "judgment', then there is choice in that. That choice could undo the choice that put the soul out of communication with the Church.
But God's judgment is final....no Catholic or Protestant has ever come back and told us about that. I guess we have to take Jesus's word for it...
I see no conflict in the Church stating that if you don't accept the authority of the Church, you are outside of the Church, looking in, and the Church is free to describe what she believes are the results of that chosen state.
I don't see how some non-Catholic poster has identified a hypocrisy of Catholics participating in these threads, if non-Catholics are out-of-bounds, or beyond approach, if the Church really teaches what is claimed in some of these posts. This isn't what the Church teaches, which is why I may feel free to inform people about my faith here in such a forum.
The Church teaches that all Christians are Christians united in a single Baptismal Sacrament (the Catholic Church recognizes any Triune Baptism in any denomination of any Church that practices Triune Baptisms - so the Latter Day Saints and the Jehovah Witnesses are out, but the Baptists, Methodists and Presbyterians are in).
From there, the discussion is about more and less "fullness of relationship with God", noting that some Protestant missionaries doing the charitable work of God under great personal sacrifice are in a fuller relationship with God than I, a comfy American Roman Catholic Christian living in a modern city and perhaps not indulging in such a level of alignment of personal will with that of God. I can't speak for Christians making happy plates at Lobster Hut.
As far as some of the other words - "deliver to satan" and what-not, the Church is the guardian of the faithful. If one abandons the Church, the Church doesn't "kidnap" the person, they are released to follow their own path. If the Church believes that she has defined a normative path to God, then any other path is...well...another path.
I just don't understand why people get all bent about this. Muslims declare me "infidel" - so what? If one does not recognize the authoity of a given Church or faith definition (in this case - Muslim), why does one care what that Church decrees? I get told several times a year (or hear about it behind my back) here in Oklahoma that I am going to hell because I am Catholic and Catholics aren't saved. So what?
< Message edited by Doghouse -- 11/13/2009 11:40:21 AM >
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/13/2009 1:46:56 PM
|
|
|
Qtman
Posts: 5740
Joined: 3/21/2006
From: Crimson Tide Country
Status: offline
|
I'm not all bent about it. I just saw the paragraph I quoted and how anathema was used and saw a conflict. I wanted clarification.
_____________________________
Aufmerksamkeit: Es ist verboten, damit Qtman mit stummen Köpfen spricht.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/13/2009 4:27:47 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3587
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
Qtman,
You are right...and it is true. Anathema means exactly what it means.
"Since the time of the apostles, the term 'anathema' has come to mean a form of extreme religious sanction beyond excommunication, known as major excommunication.[citation needed] The earliest recorded instance of the form is in the Council of Elvira (c. 306), and thereafter it became the common method of cutting off heretics; for example, the Synod of Gangra (c. 340) pronounced that Manicheanism was anathema. Cyril of Alexandria issued twelve anathemas against Nestorius in 431. In the fifth century, a formal distinction between anathema and excommunication evolved, where excommunication entailed cutting off a person or group from the rite of Eucharist and attendance at worship, while anathema meant a complete separation of the subject from the Church."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anathema#Early_Christianity
Here is Roman Catholic doctrine on heretics and those outside the Church;
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives;...............
What are we going to be told next.....that heretics (Protestants) are in the Catholic Church?
That would mean that Protestant denominations are in the Catholic Church and post 7304 is really meaningless! We are either joined or un-joined....it cant be both even though RCC doubletalking tries to make it both.
KJB
< Message edited by KingJamesBond -- 11/13/2009 4:34:44 PM >
_____________________________
Vote out Socialism/Communism and modern day "Robbing Hoods".
Constitutional principles like those found in the Constitution Party will help to build a "Constitutional" Republican Party.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/13/2009 4:35:52 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3587
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
Doghouse,
quote:
I just don't understand why people get all bent about this. Muslims declare me "infidel" - so what? If one does not recognize the authoity of a given Church or faith definition (in this case - Muslim), why does one care what that Church decrees? I get told several times a year (or hear about it behind my back) here in Oklahoma that I am going to hell because I am Catholic and Catholics aren't saved. So what?
No one is bent about it.
It just shows that you cannot stay consistent with Roman Catholic doctrines.
You deviate from them and you are probably not Roman Catholic but just dont know it.
You cannot sit there and say to ManimalX "the Catholic Church doesn't think that about you. either...and I don't, as well." when he speaks about the Roman Catholic Church and their absolute doctrine on heretics and those outside the Church (both of which fit ManimalX).
All you are is inconsistent and that is why you have to resort to changing the meanings of words and try re-interpreting Roman Catholic doctrines as if the rest of us cannot read and understand basic English.
KJB
< Message edited by KingJamesBond -- 11/13/2009 4:42:02 PM >
_____________________________
Vote out Socialism/Communism and modern day "Robbing Hoods".
Constitutional principles like those found in the Constitution Party will help to build a "Constitutional" Republican Party.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/13/2009 5:32:45 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 969
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
QTMAN QUOTED AN UN-NAMED CATHOLIC-SOUNDING DOCUMENT
quote:
we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.[5]
Don’t know the context, historically….but I think this is like the Scripture…the man living with father’s wife whose body is turned over to the devil that his soul might be saved…also Gal 1:8-9… I reckon the key phrase would be “so long as he will not” ...(i.e. free will: can repent before death at any time…)
KJB WROTE:
quote:
"Since the time of the apostles, the term 'anathema' has come to mean a form of extreme religious sanction beyond excommunication, known as major excommunication.[citation needed] The earliest recorded instance of the form is in the Council of Elvira (c. 306), and thereafter it became the common method of cutting off heretics; for example, the Synod of Gangra (c. 340) pronounced that Manicheanism was anathema. Cyril of Alexandria issued twelve anathemas against Nestorius in 431. In the fifth century, a formal distinction between anathema and excommunication evolved, where excommunication entailed cutting off a person or group from the rite of Eucharist and attendance at worship, while anathema meant a complete separation of the subject from the Church."
I don’t know about this… I know in the early Church some people had to fulfill penances that might last for years (depending on the case) before recieving full communion…these would seem very different from those obstinately in rebellion against Christian doctrines...
quote:
What are we going to be told next.....that heretics (Protestants) are in the Catholic Church?
…personally, I think it is case by case… I suppose that some people identifying themselves as “protestants” are not presently in the Church, and that many are, but simply have been misled through no fault of their own...
quote:
We are either joined or un-joined....it cant be both even though RCC doubletalking tries to make it both.
I think it is careful accuracy rather than duplicity… likewise, I think that many people identifying themselves as “Catholics” may be obstinate heretics who are therefore outside of the Church…
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 11/13/2009 6:51:37 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/13/2009 6:53:28 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1191
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: online
|
I just lost a rather long post due to the performance of this websites servers. This has been an issue for a month for me. Maybe Fritz is applying a special filter...
So I am going to try again in a more abbreviated fashion:
Noting the language that the Church has used in the Middle Ages (can't you find something for us to ponder from the Catechism???), basically what is being said is that if you place yourself outside the Church, you are taking your chances on dealing with God outside that which His Son authorized to instruct regarding faith. If one reverses that stance, then one is not taking a chance on that.
And once again, I'll state that every Church believes this, as the Catholics here have been referred to as "reprobate" at the least, and reading between the lines, probably worse than that. We get to hear in the "Mary" threads about the wages of "worshipping Mary" and the wages of idolatry, and then attributing that practice to Catholics, ergo - telling the Catholics they are all going to hell, because hell is full of idolators, and Catholics are idolators. Just because its done in 1+1+1=3 fashion doesn't make it right. In fact, its a clear violation of the TOS for this site.
But on it goes, doesn't it....?
How is that all not doing the exact same thing that you are accusing the Catholics of? The idea being that if I quit being Catholic and come join your Church and subscribe to your discernment of the Gospels, then I am "saved".
What Church teaches that it is the Pillar of Truth, but then allows its adherents to believe anything they care to, in spite of what is instructed of that Truth?
Show us in the Catechism how Catholics are to deal with those outside the Catholic faith. I mean, that is what the Church uses to instruct its faithful - so quote it.
You've already heard from several here that they have been taught within the Church that the Catholic faith is the fullness of relationship with God through Jesus, which in my mind presumes other practices are "less full". So - what are the ramifications of a "less full" practice of faith?
More purgatory time?
The least common denominator within all Christian faiths is a professed belief in God and Jesus. From their, we begin to talk fullness of faith, not the existence of it.
As far as "bait and switch" - I tell it like I know it and live it. There are so many strawmen erected in these discussions that people have Catholics doing all kinds of goofy things, and then telling us we shouldn't do that. You accuse me of "bait and switch" in my responses, yet you feel free to do it when "interpreting" the Canon of the Church, using whatever obscure material you are able to cobble together, and attributing whatever meaning you see fit to it.
Let me save you some effort - HERE is a link to the Catechism. Now, you only have one place you have to look to attempt to tell me what I must believe in order to be Catholic. This link has been posted numerous times in these threads.
Happy hunting...THIS will help get you started. I know its not as fun as searching for obscure quotes of the Church condemning others, but you seem to interested in accuracy, so i am going to try to help get you to that destination. Maybe slide on down to 817 or so and start there, but read all you want. I've been reciting 818 to you in my own fashion, and note that in 819, "...many elements of sanctification and of truth" are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements." Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation...
This hardly sounds like the Catholic Church is instructing that everyone outside of her is condemned, does it?
Post any questions, and we'll discuss...
< Message edited by Doghouse -- 11/13/2009 7:28:43 PM >
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/13/2009 8:18:53 PM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 444
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
How is that all not doing the exact same thing that you are accusing the Catholics of? The idea being that if I quit being Catholic and come join your Church and subscribe to your discernment of the Gospels, then I am "saved".
How true Dogman. I’ve already shown from a Protestant document that they officially “condemned” the Anabaptists and their “peculiar doctrines”. I also showed from the Westminster Confession of Faith that Presbyterians and Reformed believe that their “officers” are appointed under the authority of Jesus, that these “officers” are leaders of “His Church”, and that outside of “His Church” there is no salvation.
Why don’t you have a problem with this KJB? The authors of these documents used scripture to make these claims. Of the Anabaptists they said: “We therefore are not Anabaptists and have nothing in common with them.”
Let me see if I can summarize this as KJB would:
1) The “officers” of the Presbyterian and Reformed Church are the leaders of “His Church”. (from sola-scriptura)
2) There is no salvation outside of “His Church” (from sola-scriptura)
3) The “officers” have the authority to deny communion and ex-communicate. (from sola-scripture)
4) The “officers” have condemned the Anabaptists
5) The Presbyterian and Reformed Church “have nothing in common” with the Anabaptist
Therefore:
The Presbyterian and Reformed Church teach that Anabaptists and those who subscribe to their “peculiar doctrines” (“symbolic” and “believers only” baptism) are condemned. All according to scripture.
KJB – if you apply the same “logic” you use against Catholics to the Presbyterian and Reformed Church, you should be just as outraged with them. Why the double standard?
I think in reality you would agree with me that this is not what the Reformed and Presbyterian Church teach. Why? Because I have taken individual statements out of context and applied them to build an absurd strawman. This is precisely what you are doing with quotes from the CC.
So why do you pick and choose various quotes from hundreds of years ago to build these strawmen? Why not just use the CCC like many of us have repeatedly asked you to do. What is your motivation?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/13/2009 8:19:00 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3587
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
Doghouse,
quote:
Let me save you some effort - HERE is a link to the Catechism. Now, you only have one place you have to look to attempt to tell me what I must believe in order to be Catholic. This link has been posted numerous times in these threads.
quote:
Noting the language that the Church has used in the Middle Ages (can't you find something for us to ponder from the Catechism???), basically what is being said is that if you place yourself outside the Church, you are taking your chances on dealing with God outside that which His Son authorized to instruct regarding faith. If one reverses that stance, then one is not taking a chance on that.
But we are not outside of the Church. The very fact that a few of you on this forum claimed that ManimalX is not hell bound shows that he is in the Church.
Only people outside of the Church are considered not saved and that does not imply that they might not be brought into the Church at a later time.
Leading me to one source (a current Catechism) does not change the fact that your doctrine throughout history has had many problems. If your one source of current teachings do not line up with all the other teachings of Popes all the way back to Peter.......it must mean the RCC has had inconsistent teachings.
There is one very common denominator that Christians should be able to unite on and that is exactly how ManimalX said it;
quote:
See, more of the consequences of bad Roman doctrine. You see professed belief in God and Jesus as "the least common denominator", when in reality it is the most important thing we all share and the reason the Church of Christ is unified, regardless of how much division the RCC wants to introduce into it.
In Christ there is unity even when there are differences.
There are differences in the persons of the trinity but there is also unity in the persons of the trinity.
KJB
_____________________________
Vote out Socialism/Communism and modern day "Robbing Hoods".
Constitutional principles like those found in the Constitution Party will help to build a "Constitutional" Republican Party.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/13/2009 8:28:07 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3587
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
wkirscher,
quote:
KJB – if you apply the same “logic” you use against Catholics to the Presbyterian and Reformed Church, you should be just as outraged with them. Why the double standard?
I think in reality you would agree with me that this is not what the Reformed and Presbyterian Church teach. Why? Because I have taken individual statements out of context and applied them to build an absurd strawman. This is precisely what you are doing with quotes from the CC.
So why do you pick and choose various quotes from hundreds of years ago to build these strawmen? Why not just use the CCC like many of us have repeatedly asked you to do. What is your motivation?
Not true and I have already explained it to you more than a few times.
One more time.......you should be allowed the liberty to congregate with people that are like-minded and if you are in Christ I am the last person that would want to declare you anathema.
I should also have the liberty to congregate with like minded people.
There is no reason I should be compelled to believe that a wafer turns to flesh just because popes teach that it does.
If I am firmly convinced in my mind and heart that Jesus Christ had a different intended meaning that Popes have not grasped and evade them........I should be free to be convinced in my mind and heart without the types of persecution that popes and clergy in the RCC used to impose on people.
I should have the liberty to believe in opposition to popes that teach such things and so should Presbyterians.
I should also have the liberty to dis-agree with Presbyterian doctrines that I do not agree with.
You only need to come to grips on a simple question;
Are Protestants that have faith in Jesus Christ in His Church or not?
KJB
_____________________________
Vote out Socialism/Communism and modern day "Robbing Hoods".
Constitutional principles like those found in the Constitution Party will help to build a "Constitutional" Republican Party.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/15/2009 1:31:59 PM
|
|
|
Ps103
Posts: 12584
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: Here, now
Status: offline
|
MODERATOR'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE
KingJamesBond, please email community@salemwebnetwork.com regarding the status of your account. Please allow time for a reply. Do not post under this handle or any other without permission from admin.
Thanks.
Please do not reply to this message within the Community. Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
_____________________________
Fasten your seatbelts...it's going to be a bumpy night.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/15/2009 2:23:05 PM
|
|
|
Ps103
Posts: 12584
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: Here, now
Status: offline
|
MODERATOR'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE
This thread is now re-opened.
Please exercise self-control in your posting, remember the Terms of Service you have agreed to abide by, and bear in mind the topic of the thread when posting.
If you cannot do the above, I would advise you to find a different thread to posting where you can follow the rules, as further posts ignoring them will be removed and action taken against the violators account(s).
Thank you.
Please do not reply to this message within the Community. Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
_____________________________
Fasten your seatbelts...it's going to be a bumpy night.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/15/2009 2:37:17 PM
|
|
|
Ps103
Posts: 12584
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: Here, now
Status: offline
|
While I really think the discussion of "Who is in the church?" is off-topic, I think THIS article may help clear up some of the concerns Sam and Manimal seem to have.
In essence, what it means is that all Christians who have been Baptized in the Trinitarian form (ie, not Oneness, etc) *are* members of The Church, but not necessarily "in *full* communion."
_____________________________
Fasten your seatbelts...it's going to be a bumpy night.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/15/2009 5:03:39 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1191
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: online
|
quote:
See, more of the consequences of bad Roman doctrine. You see professed belief in God and Jesus as "the least common denominator", when in reality it is the most important thing we all share and the reason the Church of Christ is unified, regardless of how much division the RCC wants to introduce into it.
"Least Common Denominator" is a mathematical term that applies to fractions. It describes the lowest number by which two differing terms may be evenly divided, thus describing the greatest degree of commonality between them. This is how fractions are added and subtracted; by converting the denominator of the fraction of both terms to the least common denominator of both terms and adding or subtracting the numerators.
So - the "consequences" are not due to "bad Roman doctrine" but "poor mathematical understanding" or "usage of poorly understood terminology in a post".
It was not my intent to describe God or Jesus as least important. A mathematician would recognize that I was describing that this is one of the greatest commonalities we share.
Having said that, why would the current edition of the catechism state what it states in 818 and 819 if the interpretation of the 15th century document supplied by KJB is valid? ForCatholics, the current Catechism is that which we use to mold our understanding of our faith.
My answer is that the interpretation of the 15th century document supplied is incorrect.
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/15/2009 6:48:49 PM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 2852
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ps103
While I really think the discussion of "Who is in the church?" is off-topic, I think THIS article may help clear up some of the concerns Sam and Manimal seem to have.
In essence, what it means is that all Christians who have been Baptized in the Trinitarian form (ie, not Oneness, etc) *are* members of The Church, but not necessarily "in *full* communion."
But here is the thing regarding "full communion" and "partial communion". Someone correct me if my understanding is wrong:
1) I reject the Roman Papcy's authority over me, as well as many other Roman Doctrines
2) Therefore, I am not in "full communion" with "The Church"
3) Therefore, I am not allowed to do things like participate in a "real" Eucharist as the Roman church defines it
4) According to Roman doctrine, partaking of the "real" Eucharist as the Roman church defines it is required for the salvation of my soul
5) Therefore, I am not saved
6) Therefore, I am going to Hell
Of course, it would be a violation of TOS for a Roman Christian to make such a claim, but I really don't mind: I just want an honest answer. Am I hellbound for rejecting Roman doctrine, even though I believe in Jesus Christ, or not? Or is this why the idea of purgatory had to be made up, so dirty apes like me can burn for a while for protesting against Papacy? How convenient that is... they get to damn protesters to burn for a LITTLE while, but not ETERNALLY!
_____________________________
"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth." - 2nd Timothy 2:24,25
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/15/2009 7:53:27 PM
|
|
|
Ps103
Posts: 12584
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: Here, now
Status: offline
|
Manimal, what can I say except that what you have described is an adequate representation of some--but certainly not all--Protestant interpretation, but not an adequate representation of Catholic doctrine from anything I have read.
Nothing in Catholic doctrine that I can find says you are going to hell, or that I am going to hell. If you are baptised in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, you are a Christian. If you wish to become a Catholic, that would not be sufficient, but as you do not so desire, it is pretty irrelevant, don't you think?
So my advice to you is not to worry about it and move on to something else.
_____________________________
Fasten your seatbelts...it's going to be a bumpy night.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/16/2009 1:34:09 AM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 2852
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ps103
Manimal, what can I say except that what you have described is an adequate representation of some--but certainly not all--Protestant interpretation, but not an adequate representation of Catholic doctrine from anything I have read.
I'm not going off of Protestant interpretations, only the things I have learned through my Roman brothers and sisters posting here and in the other RCC one-stops (which includes their many references to their own websites).
quote:
Nothing in Catholic doctrine that I can find says you are going to hell, or that I am going to hell.
That is incorrect, as I will demonstrate in moment.
quote:
If you are baptised in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, you are a Christian. If you wish to become a Catholic, that would not be sufficient, but as you do not so desire, it is pretty irrelevant, don't you think?
No, it is in fact completely relevant. We can't just gloss over terms just because the same words are used by each side. That is why, for example, that it is important to carefully define terms when speaking with a Mormon or a Jehova's Witness. They use the same "Christianese" we do, but it means something very different.
It is the same here. Being baptized in non-Roman terms has a different meaning than being baptized according to the Roman Catholic Church.
quote:
So my advice to you is not to worry about it and move on to something else.
I think it is important to understand how the "opposition" views its "opponent". If Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that someone like me who professes Jesus Christ as savior is not really saved because I haven't done so by the approved Roman methods, that is bad teaching which is upheld by the Papacy and therefore speaks to the issue of "Why do we need a Pope".
Remember what the Sacraments are:
quote:
1113 The whole liturgical life of the Church revolves around the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacraments. There are seven sacraments in the Church: Baptism, Confirmation or Chrismation, Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2Z.HTM
With that in mind:
- I wasn't baptized by a Roman-approved official in the Roman-approved manner.
- I have not been "confirmed" by a Roman-approved official in the Roman-approved manner.
- I haven't partaken in the Eucharist as prayed over by a Roman-approved official in the Roman-approved manner as I reject the idea of a physical transformation of the Elements.
- I don't confess my sins to a Roman-approved official in the Roman-approved manner.
- I reject the Papacy and the Roman idea of Apostolic Succession.
In summary, I at LEAST reject the Sacraments as defined by Rome of Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, and Holy Orders, and since I reject those Roman Sacraments, I by extension reject the Roman Sacraments of Anointing the Sick and Matrimony since they are dependent on the other Roman Sacraments.
For example, since I wasn't "confirmed", my baptism (which is required for my salvation according to Rome) is incomplete and doesn't count: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3P.HTM
Since I wasn't baptized by a Roman-approved official in the Roman-approved manner, I cannot receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P4X.HTM
Since I reject other Roman Sacraments such as Baptism, Eucharist, and Penance, I am also not able to celebrate the sacrament of Matrimony: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P52.HTM
Since I reject other Roman Sacraments such as Baptism, Eucharist and Penance, I am also not able to celebrate the Sacrament of Anointing the Sick: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P4M.HTM
Etc, etc, etc.
With that in mind, here is what the Catechism says about me:
quote:
1129 The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P33.HTM
My syllogism:
1) The Catechism teaches that rejection of the Roman-approved sacraments means I have no salvation.
2) The Pope by definition approves of and validates the Catechism.
3) Therefore, the Pope rejects my salvation in Christ.
4) Therefore, the Pope teaches that I am going to Hell.
5) The Bible teaches that I am saved by grace, through faith, and that not of myself, but a gift by Jesus Christ through the shed blood of His cross and His resurrection.
6) Therefore, the Bible disagrees with Rome's requirements for salvation
7) Therefore, I reject the Pope and Papacy.
< Message edited by ManimalX -- 11/16/2009 1:42:15 AM >
_____________________________
"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth." - 2nd Timothy 2:24,25
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/16/2009 2:10:36 AM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 2852
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
|
Oops, I forgot an important part of my closing syllogism. The first line should be: 1) I reject the Sacraments as defined by the Roman church in their Catechism.
1) I reject the Sacraments as defined by the Roman church in their Catechism.
2) The Catechism teaches that rejection of the Roman-approved sacraments means I have no salvation in Christ.
3) The Pope by definition approves of and validates the Catechism.
4) Therefore, the Pope rejects my salvation in Christ.
5) Therefore, the Pope teaches that I am going to Hell.
6) The Bible teaches that I am saved by grace, through faith, and that not of myself, but a gift by Jesus Christ through the shed blood of His cross and His resurrection.
7) Therefore, the Bible disagrees with Rome's requirements for salvation
8) Therefore, I reject the Pope and Papacy.
ETA: "...in their Catechism"
< Message edited by ManimalX -- 11/16/2009 2:23:26 AM >
_____________________________
"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth." - 2nd Timothy 2:24,25
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/16/2009 2:55:54 AM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 444
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
Okay ManimalX …..
Let’s apply your same reasoning using official sola-scriptura teachings from the Presbyterian and Reformed Church:
1) The “officers” of the Presbyterian and Reformed Church are the leaders of “His Church”.
2) The “officers” of “His Church” have “condemned” the Anabaptists
3) The “officers” of “His Church” reject the “peculiar doctrines” of the Anabaptists, namely “symbolic” and “believer’s only” baptism.
4) The sola-scriptura teachings of the Reformed and Presbyterian Church “have nothing in common” with the Anabaptists.
5) There is no salvation outside of “His Church”
Each of these statements is drawn from official Presbyterian and Reformed documents. If I carefully assemble these and ignore the context and historical backdrop in which they were written, I can make the following conclusion:
Anabaptists and other Christians who believe in the “peculiar doctrine” of “symbolic”, “believer’s only” baptism are going to hell !!!
Now you know as well as I do that this is not what the Presbyterian and Reformed Church teaches. If one really wanted an official Reformed position on such a matter, why not simply ask? What would motivate a person to do otherwise?
You tell us you “just want an honest answer”. What are we to believe when we repeatedly give you an honest answer but you won’t accept it? It seems as if you want to make up your own answer to suit your own purposes.
You can make up your own teachings, or you can get an “honest answer” from here:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm#819
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/16/2009 3:02:52 AM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 2852
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
|
All of that being said, I don't know if I have much more to contribute to this thread.
Unless Pat or Dog or Gato or wkirscher can aptly demonstrate some misunderstanding on my part of the Catechism, I respectfully bow out of the thread.
P.S. wkirscher, I just saw that you live in Denver. You are only about 30 minutes away from me. Small world, eh?  For the record, I really like a lot of Archbishop Chaput's teaching and writing. Maybe some day I could come to Mass with you to see how the "other side" lives, or you could come up to a service at Christ Community with me in Greeley. Regardless of what you may think of me from my ardent arguments here, I am a pretty jovial and agreeable fellow 
_____________________________
"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth." - 2nd Timothy 2:24,25
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
