Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

He who holds the keys to the kingdom - the Catholic practice of granting indulgences
The Tablet ^ | February 18, 2006 | Robert Mickens

Posted on 02/17/2006 9:35:32 AM PST by NYer

For many modern Catholics, the practice of granting indulgences to hasten the path through purgatory to heaven is thought to have been ended by Vatican II. Under Benedict XVI there has been a revival – and it is one which tells us much about papal authority

“When a coin in the coffer clings, a soul from purgatory heavenward springs.” Every good Protestant who is old enough to have grandchildren will recognise these words. They are attributed to a sixteenth-century German friar, Johann Tetzel OP, who actually sold indulgences to help finance the construction of St Peter’s Basilica in Rome. It was this abuse that ignited the rage of Martin Luther, who in 1517 helped launch the Protestant Reformation.

Many Catholics today, at least those on the progressive wing of the Church, probably never give indulgences a second thought. The notion that by securing an indulgence – quite simply the removal of the temporal punishment of sins that have already been forgiven by the Church – one can secure a fast track to heaven seems curiously outmoded to many. It is an aspect of Catholic life that belongs, if not to the Middle Ages, to the pre-Vatican II era.

But now there is clear evidence that indulgences are very much back at the heart of Catholic life as seen from the Vatican. In his first 10 months of office, Pope Benedict XVI has explicitly – and surprisingly – granted a plenary indulgence in connection with three major ecclesial events: last year’s World Youth Day, the fortieth anniversary of the conclusion of Vatican II, and the recent World Day of the Sick.

So what should we make of such recommendations? Has the Church taken a step backwards? Or have indulgences continued to exist, but been quietly ignored? In fact it can be argued that Benedict’s interest in indulgences tells us a great deal about how he perceives his own authority and that of the Church.

In classic Catholic teaching, forged between the eleventh and sixteenth centuries, the practice reflects the belief that pastors can “set the individual free from the vestiges of sin by applying to him or her the merits of Christ and the saints” – what has been called the “treasury of the Church”. Basically, an indulgence – either partial or plenary (full) – allows one to reduce his or her “time” in purgatory or apply this grace to someone else who is already deceased. In order to obtain a plenary indulgence one must perform the prescribed task, plus go to sacramental confession, receive Eucharistic Communion, and pray for the Pope’s intentions.

The Council of Trent, which sat from 1545 to 1562, not only outlawed the selling of indulgences but also roundly condemned Martin Luther as well: “The Church… condemns with anathema those who say that indulgences are useless or that the Church does not have the power to grant them.” This same formula was re-stated, verbatim, by Pope Paul VI in 1967, some two years after the end of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), which – significantly – had chosen not to issue condemnations or anathemas.

The practice of indulgences was never really addressed at Vatican II. And yet, some four decades later, a good number of Catholics – and many Protestants, too – continue to hold rather firmly but equally erroneously to the notion that the Council did away with indulgences – or, at least, severely altered them. It was actually Pope Paul who oversaw the “revision” of the practice. But the formula that Paul devised was only a partial reform that satisfied neither the Neo-Tridentines (such as the schismatic Lefebvrists) nor the so-called “progressives” more sympathetic to Luther’s position.

Shortly after his election as Bishop of Rome in 1963 Paul VI formed a commission to revise the practice of indulgences. The findings, in a text called the Positio, were sent to the all the presidents of the world’s episcopal conferences in June 1965. The main thrust of the paper was to link the indulgence with the interior attitude of the believer and his or her action rather than with a place (such as a shrine or church) or an object (perhaps a holy medal).

Further, the numerical calculation of partial indulgences (for example, reducing a fixed number of days or years from purgatory) was to be banned and inflation of indulgences in general curtailed. This means that only one plenary indulgence could now be gained per day.

When the bishops arrived in Rome later in the autumn of 1965 for the fourth and final session of the Second Vatican Council the conference presidents were asked to state their views on the Positio, but when they did there was outrage among some. The feisty Antiochan Patriarch of the Melchites, Maximos IV, urged that indulgences be suppressed outright, saying they were “not only without theological foundation but the cause of innumerable grave abuses which (had) inflicted irreparable evils on the Church”.

Then the German bishops added fuel to the fire. The Archbishop of Munich – Cardinal Dopfner – stated unabashedly: “The idea of a ‘treasury’ that the Church ‘possesses’ leads all too easily to a materialistic or quasi-commercial conception of what is obtained by indulgences.” He recommended that the Positio be scrapped and that a group of international theologians (Karl Rahner was one such he had in mind) be selected to re-write it.

The Pope formed his new commission and in early 1967 issued the Apostolic Constitution, Indulgentiarum Doctrina – which looked similar to the original Positio. The new document said that a believer could gain the indulgence only by fulfilling three obligations: by doing the prescribed work, by having the proper disposition (attitude of the heart) while doing the work, and by acknowledging the authority of the Pope in the process.

Indulgentiarum Doctrina was in effect a restatement of the medieval Catholic doctrine of indulgences, with more personalistic language common in the theology of the initial post-Conciliar period. (This remains a criticism of the neo-Tridentines today.) And yet the anathema of Trent is still there. Partial indulgences were no longer calculated by days and years and the number of plenary indulgences was reduced. Yet critics from the other end of the spectrum are perhaps still most disturbed that indulgence theology likens divine justice to human justice and its need for reparation.

More than a change in practice, the early post-Conciliar period saw a change in attitude. But all that began to change still further with the pontificate of Pope John Paul II and his heavy emphasis on traditional devotional practices.

In his 1998 bull for the Holy Year – Incarnationis Mysterium – the Polish Pope made the indulgence a “constitutive part” of the Church’s Jubilee celebrations, which bewildered some Protestants, for in the same document the Pope also sought to give an ecumenical flavour to the event. The World Alliance of Reform Churches’ (WARC) representative on the ecumenical commission for the Jubilee – Waldensian Pastor Salvatore Ricciardi – was one of the more ardent protesters. The bull “seems wholly untouched by the events which shattered western Christianity in the sixteenth century”, Ricciardi wrote in October 1998, and then withdrew from the commission.

Receiving the indulgence “is not automatic, but depends on our turning away from sin and our conversion to God”, Pope John Paul said at a general audience in September 1999. “The paternal love of God does not exclude chastisement, even though this always should be understood in the context of a merciful justice which re-establishes the order violated,” he said.

The late Pope also issued a new manual that added a fourth way people could “gain” indulgences: by giving public witness of their faith by their frequent participation in the sacraments or by proclaiming the faith through word or example to someone who does not believe.

“If you die immediately after receiving a plenary indulgence, you go directly to heaven,” said Fr Ivan Fucek SJ at the Vatican press conference that unveiled the book.

Then after the Holy Year the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity invited representatives from WARC and the Lutheran World Federation to a two-day discussion on indulgences. Participants expressed satisfaction with the meeting and a Vatican official said there would be follow-up sessions. But to this date, there have been none.

Since then Pope Benedict has indicated that he will make indulgences much more visible than his immediate post-Conciliar predecessors. There are good reasons for this. Theologically, the Pope seems to be emphasising the medieval doctrine – codified at Trent – of the “economy of salvation” and the necessity of the Church. And politically he is making direct appeal to those Catholics – both those still in communion with Rome and those like the Lefebvrists that are in schism – who feel the practice of indulgences and the doctrine of Purgatory have been almost irreparably minimised.

But by revising the granting of the indulgence, Pope Benedict is actually doing nothing new at all. But the words of Paul VI in his 1967 document might offer a further clue to the new Pope’s motives: “We ought not to forget that when they try to gain indulgences the faithful submit with docility to the lawful pastors of the Church. Above all, they acknowledge the authority of the successor of Blessed Peter, the key-bearer of heaven. To them the Saviour himself entrusted the task of feeding his flock and ruling his Church.”


TOPICS: Activism; Apologetics; Catholic; Current Events; Ecumenism; General Discusssion; History; Ministry/Outreach; Prayer; Theology
KEYWORDS: indulgence
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-294 next last

1 posted on 02/17/2006 9:35:34 AM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: american colleen; Lady In Blue; Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; ...

.... just in case.

2 posted on 02/17/2006 9:36:37 AM PST by NYer (Discover the beauty of the Eastern Catholic Churches - freepmail me for more information.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Catholic bashing commencing in 5...4...3...2...1...


3 posted on 02/17/2006 9:36:43 AM PST by Pyro7480 (Sancte Joseph, terror daemonum, ora pro nobis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480; NYer
LOL!

The doctrine of indulgences, when properly understood, is helpful and instructive. It certainly makes one more conscious of sin and its burden, and the necessity of pious acts ("work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God which worketh in you.")

4 posted on 02/17/2006 9:41:14 AM PST by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of Ye Chase, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Y'shua is speaking:

Revelation 1:18 I am the Living One; I was dead,
and behold I am alive for ever and ever!
And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

b'shem Y'shua

5 posted on 02/17/2006 9:42:12 AM PST by Uri’el-2012 (Trust in YHvH forever, for the LORD, YHvH is the Rock eternal. (Isaiah 26:4))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

Posted 12:35

and nothing yet. Wow!


6 posted on 02/17/2006 9:49:12 AM PST by netmilsmom (To attack one section of Christianity in this day and age, is to waste time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Catholic bashing commencing in 5...4...3...2...1...

Nah, paying for an indulgence is no sillier than sending money to a Jimmy Swaggert or a Revernd Ike for a 'Prayer Rug' guaranteed to do something or other.

So9

7 posted on 02/17/2006 9:58:09 AM PST by Servant of the 9 (Trust Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the 9

If you cared to read the article, you would find that the Council of Trent outlawed the practice of selling indulgences. That was almost half a millenium ago.


8 posted on 02/17/2006 9:59:39 AM PST by Pyro7480 (Sancte Joseph, terror daemonum, ora pro nobis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt

?


9 posted on 02/17/2006 10:01:07 AM PST by NYer (Discover the beauty of the Eastern Catholic Churches - freepmail me for more information.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

6 minutes ... a minor miracle.


10 posted on 02/17/2006 10:02:01 AM PST by NYer (Discover the beauty of the Eastern Catholic Churches - freepmail me for more information.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
If you cared to read the article, you would find that the Council of Trent outlawed the practice of selling indulgences. That was almost half a millenium ago.

If you cared to read the article, you would find that while some types were outlawed, others were not and that the practice is increasing under Joey Rats.

So9

11 posted on 02/17/2006 10:20:18 AM PST by Servant of the 9 (Trust Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom

Don't worry it will happen.


12 posted on 02/17/2006 10:21:18 AM PST by Jaded (The truth shall set you free, but lying to yourself turns you French.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother

I understood from a priest that it's not actually as easy as it looks on paper. There is a "go and do that sin no more clause". (Not to be confused with approval with all other sins.)


13 posted on 02/17/2006 10:22:50 AM PST by Jaded (The truth shall set you free, but lying to yourself turns you French.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the 9

The problem was selling the indulgences, not the indulgence themselves. Indulgences don't forgive sin, they remit the temporal punishment associated with sins, since Christ gave the power of binding and loosing to the Church.


14 posted on 02/17/2006 10:31:44 AM PST by Pyro7480 (Sancte Joseph, terror daemonum, ora pro nobis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt

"and behold I am alive for ever and ever!
And I hold the keys of death and Hades. "


b'shem Y'shua

Thanks Xenia!!! Why do they forget that only God holds the keys of "death and Hades"?? Indulgences, Purgatory? LOL, no animosity, bashing, or ridicule intended. So, my question is this, does the Catholic Church really believe that their religious hierarchy are succesors to God and his apostles to be able to carry on and extend their own opinions? (such an astounding mingling of truth, lies and hypocrisy in my opinion.) This is new to me and sounds like heresy to me! (slow to understand).

So, I understand from one of the posts that Maryland was established as a Catholic state. That is interesting to me. Wonder why Catholics would come to the new world? is area I will do some reading about.

Me?. I'm a struggling christian. I am continually astounded by mere men who try to usurp the power of God for themselves. (No animosity intended, just statement of facts, trying to understand how Catholics and some Baptists, etc al. justify this claim to their relation to God in life.) Do Catholics believe the New Testament? (just wondering).

Of course, their lives are not my business to judge, but do get tired of hearing or reading judgments of my behavior, but "indulgences", sounds like during fall from grace of Egyptian Priests who sold oracles to people to protect them from bad stuff happening to them dynastys before Christ was born.

Xenia, you are so right on for me. Appreciate your posts.


15 posted on 02/17/2006 10:41:05 AM PST by twidle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt

"and behold I am alive for ever and ever!
And I hold the keys of death and Hades. "


b'shem Y'shua

Thanks Xenia!!! Why do they forget that only God holds the keys of "death and Hades"?? Indulgences, Purgatory? LOL, no animosity, bashing, or ridicule intended. So, my question is this, does the Catholic Church really believe that their religious hierarchy are succesors to God and his apostles to be able to carry on and extend their own opinions? (such an astounding mingling of truth, lies and hypocrisy in my opinion.) This is new to me and sounds like heresy to me! (slow to understand).

So, I understand from one of the posts that Maryland was established as a Catholic state. That is interesting to me. Wonder why Catholics would come to the new world? is area I will do some reading about.

Me?. I'm a struggling christian. I am continually astounded by mere men who try to usurp the power of God for themselves. (No animosity intended, just statement of facts, trying to understand how Catholics and some Baptists, etc al. justify this claim to their relation to God in life.) Do Catholics believe the New Testament? (just wondering).

Of course, their lives are not my business to judge, but do get tired of hearing or reading judgments of my behavior, but "indulgences", sounds like during fall from grace of Egyptian Priests who sold oracles to people to protect them from bad stuff happening to them dynastys before Christ was born.

Xenia, you are so right on for me. Appreciate your posts.


16 posted on 02/17/2006 10:41:06 AM PST by twidle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt

If I read the bible and pretend that I can speak Aramaic, will I be saved?


17 posted on 02/17/2006 10:44:05 AM PST by Theoden (Fidei Defensor - Deus vult!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: twidle

>>Of course, their lives are not my business to judge, but do get tired of hearing or reading judgments of my behavior, but "indulgences", sounds like during fall from grace of Egyptian Priests who sold oracles to people to protect them from bad stuff happening to them dynastys before Christ was born.<<


LOLOLOLOL!
And so it starts!

Oh no, it's not MY business to judge. Right. Then why are you here?


18 posted on 02/17/2006 10:46:30 AM PST by netmilsmom (To attack one section of Christianity in this day and age, is to waste time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: twidle
So, my question is this, does the Catholic Church really believe that their religious hierarchy are succesors to God and his apostles?

Not only does the Catholic Church believe that the bishops are the successors of the apostles, but also the Orthodox Churches. They cannot add to the apostolic teachings, but can clarify them, due to the challenge of heresy.

So, I understand from one of the posts that Maryland was established as a Catholic state. That is interesting to me. Wonder why Catholics would come to the new world? is area I will do some reading about.

Catholics were in the New World long before the English Protestants arrived. The Spanish and the Portuguese were in the Southwest, Central, and South America for a hundred years before Jamestown. Maryland was founded by English Catholics so they could practice their religion without persecution. If you were a Catholic priest, you could be executed, and if you were a lay Catholic, you could be fined and thrown into jail.

Do Catholics believe the New Testament?

We certainly do. Our Church existed BEFORE the New Testament was compiled.

but "indulgences", sounds like during fall from grace of Egyptian Priests who sold oracles to people to protect them from bad stuff happening to them dynastys before Christ was born.

Read the article and you get a good explanation on the reason for indulgences.

19 posted on 02/17/2006 10:48:21 AM PST by Pyro7480 (Sancte Joseph, terror daemonum, ora pro nobis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt
Jesus speaking to Peter:

Matthew 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven...

His words are like a lamp at my feet.

20 posted on 02/17/2006 10:50:01 AM PST by conservonator (Pray for those suffering)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NYer
?

9 posted on 02/17/2006 11:01:07 AM MST by NYer

Are you unfamiliar with the Holy Word of G-d where Y'shua means
(Psalm 118-14 ..YHvH.. has become my salvation )

or

Where Y'shua is speaking and says that only He holds the keys to death and Hades:

Revelation 1:18 I am the Living One; I was dead,
and behold I am alive for ever and ever!
And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

b'shem Y'shua
21 posted on 02/17/2006 10:50:49 AM PST by Uri’el-2012 (Trust in YHvH forever, for the LORD, YHvH is the Rock eternal. (Isaiah 26:4))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: twidle

Many have claimed to have discovered America. Which ever European you believe discovered it, is up to you, are all Catholic Christians. Leif Ericksen, Christopher Columbus, or St. Brendan the Navigator.


22 posted on 02/17/2006 10:53:04 AM PST by Theoden (Fidei Defensor - Deus vult!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NYer

You sure are a glutton for abuse, aren't you?


23 posted on 02/17/2006 11:08:26 AM PST by markomalley (Vivat Iesus!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theoden
If I read the bible and pretend that I can speak Aramaic, will I be saved?

17 posted on 02/17/2006 11:44:05 AM MST by Theoden

What pray tell does Aramaic have to do with the HOLY WORD OF G-D?

Are you unaware that the Gospels and Epistles
were breathed by the Ruach haKodesh in Koine Greek
for our understanding.

Koine Greek was the language that the whole world spoke at the time of Y'shua.

Do not take your understanding from Mel Gibson and his movie.

b'shem Y'shua
24 posted on 02/17/2006 11:13:44 AM PST by Uri’el-2012 (Trust in YHvH forever, for the LORD, YHvH is the Rock eternal. (Isaiah 26:4))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NYer

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/indulgen.htm


25 posted on 02/17/2006 11:17:18 AM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theoden
Leif Ericksen, Christopher Columbus, or St. Brendan the Navigator.

Amerigo Vespucci ...

26 posted on 02/17/2006 11:22:23 AM PST by ELS (Vivat Benedictus XVI!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Theoden
You have to do more than speak the Aramaic language Jesus spoke :)

The Gospel of Matthew, as you well know, was written in Aramaic

27 posted on 02/17/2006 11:22:44 AM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ELS

Al Gore discovered America


28 posted on 02/17/2006 11:23:19 AM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: conservonator
Matthew 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven...

Do not take this out of context, instead do a word study of "kingdom of heaven".

This will help you to understand.

b'shem Y'shua

29 posted on 02/17/2006 11:27:13 AM PST by Uri’el-2012 (Trust in YHvH forever, for the LORD, YHvH is the Rock eternal. (Isaiah 26:4))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic
Al Gore discovered America

And invented the internet, can leap tall buildings in a single bound and is faster than a speeding bullet.

30 posted on 02/17/2006 11:31:44 AM PST by AlaninSA (It's one nation under God -- brought to you by the Knights of Columbus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt
What do you think the "kingdom of heaven' is?

Remember, Scripture isn't a bunch of loose verses and books cobbled together, it is the singular story of the creation, fall and salvation. If you remember that, it helps to put each verse into perspective.

31 posted on 02/17/2006 11:36:04 AM PST by conservonator (Pray for those suffering)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: conservonator
What do you think the "kingdom of heaven' is?

Remember, Scripture isn't a bunch of loose verses and books cobbled together,
it is the singular story of the creation, fall and salvation.
If you remember that, it helps to put each verse into perspective.

31 posted on 02/17/2006 12:36:04 PM MST by conservonator

Great! You have taken the first step to understanding the whole counsel of G-d.

Use scripture to help exegete scripture.

b'shem Y'shua
32 posted on 02/17/2006 11:42:17 AM PST by Uri’el-2012 (Trust in YHvH forever, for the LORD, YHvH is the Rock eternal. (Isaiah 26:4))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Jaded
PREEE cisely.

It's not easy. It's never easy to do it right.

If nothing more, it brings home the fact that you can't do it alone!

33 posted on 02/17/2006 11:46:49 AM PST by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of Ye Chase, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: AlaninSA
All true.

Still, Jack Bauer could reduce him to tears with just the hint of a scowl

34 posted on 02/17/2006 11:56:46 AM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic
You make a good point.

Whatever you do, though, please do not share with the non-Catholics the fact that 24 is a Catholic mind-control plot. We're quite far along in our effort and it would be destructive to let too many in on the secret.

35 posted on 02/17/2006 11:58:49 AM PST by AlaninSA (It's one nation under God -- brought to you by the Knights of Columbus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: NYer
The "fatal contradictions" of purgatory and indulgences:

Assume the Church is correct, that there exists a "temporal punishment" for sins already forgiven that must be paid here on earth or in purgatory. No, I don't accept that, but lets go with it for a minute.

The punishment supposedly "purifies" the person. Why would anyone not want to get the full "purification" afforded by the punishment? If the "merits of Christ and the Saints" can be substituted for punishment, why were they not substituted immediately upon the death of a person, just like Christ substituted his rightousness for our sins at the moment of our belief in him? Why the piecemeal substitution? Finally, why Christ's merit AND the Saint's merit? Does Christ not have enough merit of His own? He needs the Saints to chip in some of theirs??
36 posted on 02/17/2006 12:03:56 PM PST by armydoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic; Theoden

You have to do more than speak the Aramaic language Jesus spoke :)

The Gospel of Matthew, as you well know, was written in Aramaic

27 posted on 02/17/2006 12:22:44 PM MST by bornacatholic

Matthew was a Jew, he spoke Hebrew and probably Aramaic
and Koine Greek as he was a tax collector for the Roman Empire.

The Gospel was written from a Jewish perspective and
contains many linguistic Hebraism constructs.

The roman church has to insist that it was written in
Aramaic in order to support their Peter and the Rock theory.

However we all Know that the Ruach haKodesh
breathed all the Gospels and Epistles in Koine Greek
for our understanding

And the only rock that Y'shua is referring to is Himself.

Matthew. 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,

One method of Hermeneutical understanding of Matthew 16:18
is to do a word study of all the scriptures which were then known
as the Holy Word of G-d when Y'shua spoke these words.
This will allow one to understand that all of the Holy Word of G-d
was inspired by YHvH

The only conclusion that one can come to unless you are
predisposed to believe in man's tradition over the Holy Word of G-d
is that Y'shua was speaking of himself as the "rock"
e.g.

Genesis 49:24 But his bow remained steady, his strong arms stayed
[Or archers will attack...will shoot...will remain...will stay] supple,
because of the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob,
because of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel,

Deuteronomy 32:3 I will proclaim the name of the LORD. Oh, praise the greatness of our God!

Deuteronomy 32:4 He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are
just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.

Deuteronomy 32:15 ..... He abandoned the God who made him and rejected the Rock his Saviour.

Deuteronomy 32:30 How could one man chase a thousand, or two put ten
thousand to flight, unless their Rock had sold them, unless
the LORD had given them up?

Deuteronomy 32:31 For their rock is not like our Rock, as even our enemies concede

Deuteronomy 32:32 Their vine comes from the vine of Sodom and from the fields of Gomorrah.
Their grapes are filled with poison, and their clusters with bitterness.

1 Samuel 2:2 "There is no-one holy [Or no Holy One] like the LORD;
there is no-one besides you; there is no Rock like our God.

2 Samuel 22:2 He said: "The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer;

2 Samuel 22:3 my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the
horn [Horn here symbolises strength.] of my salvation.
He is my stronghold, my refuge and my saviour — from violent men you save me.

2 Samuel 22:32 For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God?

2 Samuel 22:47 "The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God, the Rock, my Saviour!

2 Samuel 23:3 The God of Israel spoke, the Rock of Israel said to me:
'When one rules over men in righteousness, when he rules in the fear of God,

Psalm 18:31 For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God?

Psalm 18:46 The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God my Saviour!

Psalm 19:14 May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
be pleasing in your sight, O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer.

Psalm 42:9 I say to God my Rock, "Why have you forgotten me? Why must I go about mourning, oppressed by the enemy?"

Psalm 78:35 They remembered that God was their Rock, that God Most High was their Redeemer.

Psalm 89:26 He will call out to me, `You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Saviour.'

Psalm 92:15 ..... "YHvH is upright; he is my Rock, and there is no wickedness in him."

Psalm 95:1 Come, let us sing for joy to the LORD; let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation.

Psalm 144:1 Praise be to the LORD my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.

Habakkuk 1:12 O LORD, are you not from everlasting? My God, my Holy
One, we will not die. O LORD, you have appointed them to
execute judgment; O Rock, you have ordained them to punish.

b'shem Y'shua
37 posted on 02/17/2006 12:07:51 PM PST by Uri’el-2012 (Trust in YHvH forever, for the LORD, YHvH is the Rock eternal. (Isaiah 26:4))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: twidle
Do Catholics believe the New Testament?

Catholics live the New Testament.

John
Chapter 6
53
Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."

38 posted on 02/17/2006 12:17:37 PM PST by NYer (Discover the beauty of the Eastern Catholic Churches - freepmail me for more information.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt

Correct. They are Jesus' keys. And He *chose* to give them to St. Peter and his successors. "I will give you (Peter) the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and *whatsoever* you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and *whatsoever* you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

If you give me the keys to *your* house and then leave, do I not have control over it? Am I not held accountable by you for what goes on inside it, while at the same time trusted with its upkeep? Can I not allow people into it of my choosing?? Am I not in charge? Notwithstanding that, is it not still *your* house?

Jesus said the words I quoted from Matthew 16:19 for a reason. They are not empty words or spoken merely to sill out the future New Testament. He DID give an Apostle such power. Jesus is also, being God, omniscient. He knew His Church would last considerably beyond the time of Peter's lifespan. His power was given to his successor and all subsequent successors to the present day, for the benefit of each Christian generation that has come after the original one.

A share in this "binding and loosing" power of St. Peter was given to the other Apostles by Jesus in Matthew 18:18. Their successors are our bishops.

The pope and the bishops have the fullness of the priesthood of Christ. Having the power to bind and to loose, they exercise it, in part, through the power to grant indulgences. That abuses of this process have surfaced at times historically is a different issue from saying that the power does not exist. All of the Apostles, and all of their successors, are prone to sin through their damaged human nature. Nevertheless, they still exercise their ministries. We are not Donatists!


39 posted on 02/17/2006 1:02:10 PM PST by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt; bornacatholic; Theoden
Matthew was a Jew, he spoke Hebrew and probably Aramaic and Koine Greek as he was a tax collector for the Roman Empire.

At that time in history, Hebrew was spoken only in the Temple. Jesus, Mary, Joseph and the Apostles spoke Aramaic. That was the common language. Following His death and resurrection, Peter brought the 'good news' first to Antioch. It is in Antioch that the one of the earliest liturgies was developed. The Chaldean, Maronite and Melkite Catholic Churches all retain our Lord's words of Consecration at the Last Supper, in His language - Aramaic.

Consecration in Aramaic

Byow mo how daq dom ha sho dee leh
ma' bed hy eh
nsa bel lah mo be dow qa dee sho to.
Ou ba rekh
ou qa desh
waq so
ou ya bel tal mee dow kad o mar:
Sab a khool meh neh kul khoon:
Ho no den ee tow faghro deel
day lo fy koun wah lof sagee hey
meh tez seh ou meh tee heb
lhoo so yo dhow beh was ha yeh dal 'o lam
'ol meen.

English Translation

On the day before his life-giving passion,
Jesus took bread in his holy hands.
He blessed,
sanctified,
broke,
and gave it to his disciples, saying:
Take and eat it, all of you:
This is my body
which is broken and delivered for you
and for many,
for the forgiveness of sins and eternal life.

40 posted on 02/17/2006 1:08:24 PM PST by NYer (Discover the beauty of the Eastern Catholic Churches - freepmail me for more information.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Jaded

That's true. And a plenary (full) indulgence can only be gained by a person who has cooperated with the grace of God in such a way that there is "freedom from the attachment to sin." That's pretty hard! Being merely in a state of grace is insufficient. Therefore, such a person (and that's probably most even attempting to gain an indulgence), gains a "partial indulgence" for the work at hand. Furthermore, our non-Catholic brethren might be open enough to see how *that* is pretty open-ended in God's favor! Since the indulgence is now "partial," and "partial" is not defined, it is up to *God* to decide what proportion to apply.

The pope and the bishops have control of the keys, but it's *still* God's house. Amen!


41 posted on 02/17/2006 1:08:31 PM PST by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Hope this is symbolic "eating of the flesh". That is what communion is to me. I am a realist and have problem sometime with symbolic rituals and statements in religions.

Otherwise, this appears to be "cannabalistic" with some connection to the belief of human sacrifice practiced in pagan religiions. Jesus of course, the last human sacrifice to end all human sacrifices. Jesus was sacrificed for our sins so that we no longer have to give "live" sacrifices. (could this be the similar to ritual that Islamists are practicing today with the suicide bombers they refer to as "martyrs")

Most of us have difficulty thinking about actually eating or drinking "real" blood and flesh, but it did exist but not with Chrisitians, just symbolic. Jesus death is the way we were able to do away with live sacrifices when we committd sins. Never really understood how this decision was accepted other than he was God and he could make such a decision. So, I accept this communion, but symbolic only. I guess since God can do all things, he can make the symbols the real "blood" and "flesh" if he wishes and it is your belief that God does that with each communion, and of course the food is assimilated into our bodies for energy, etc.

Thanks for your guidance.


42 posted on 02/17/2006 1:09:23 PM PST by twidle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: twidle; Pyro7480

I would only add here that in NO WAY does the Catholic hierarchy consider itself "successors to God" as twidle posits. God is God. Period. The bishops are merely successors to the Apostles, who were mere men. But men endowed with MUCH authority BY God. The Cliff Notes version of justifying this authority is found in Matthew 16:18-19 and Matthew 18:18, but there is much more than that, of course.

At any rate, those Apostles and today's bishops have authority to "bind and to loose" NOT because they are God, but because He who IS God told them they have the authority.


43 posted on 02/17/2006 1:16:53 PM PST by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt

You're not doing a very good job of trying to CONVERT people.


44 posted on 02/17/2006 1:19:31 PM PST by Jaded (The truth shall set you free, but lying to yourself turns you French.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: twidle

I understand your problem with this and reluctance to consider the Eucharist anything beyond symbolic. It seems cannabalistic to those unfamiliar with it.

But consider that the pagans that were persecuting the early Church *also* didn't understand it, and, by their misunderstanding, actually provide an unintended "witness" to the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist. They had heard that someone's body and blood were being consumed at Christian rites. Things heard second-hand have a habit of being mangled a bit, so they jumped to the conclusion that babies were being killed and cannabalized by the Christians in their "vile rites." They would not have formed this idea had it not been the case that, in reality, the Christians considered that they *were*, in fact, literally eating the Body and Blood of Christ. Much of the persecution of these Christians derives from the pagan horror of something that was true - the Body and Blood of Christ being consumed - being misunderstood as the type of cannabalism they had heard about among the barbarians.

They therefore provide telling witness to the deeply held Catholic beliefs about the Eucharist in effect from those days to our own time.


45 posted on 02/17/2006 1:25:37 PM PST by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: NYer

One of the most wonderful teachings in the Church is the teaching about the "Power of the Keys." The Catechism has an excellent description about indulgences.


46 posted on 02/17/2006 1:31:26 PM PST by Martina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt

Here we go again! You never did answer several persons' questions, on another recent thread, asking point-blank: Did Jesus speak Aramaic to the Apostles or not?

We're not so stupid that we don't know what language the New Testament was writte in! Indeed, Matthew's Gospel was originally written in either Hebrew or Aramaic, as there are far too many Semiticisms in it for things to be otherwise.

But you yourself seem to think the whole thing was written in Hebrew. You prove my point by insisting on Hebraicisms in many of your posts. For example, that the Holy Spirit be referred to as Ruach haKodesh. That, I submit, is NOT Greek.

I'd still like to hear your answer about the language spoken by Jesus in everyday conversation with both the Apostles and the common people He encountered in His ministry.


47 posted on 02/17/2006 1:33:34 PM PST by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: twidle
Hope this is symbolic "eating of the flesh". That is what communion is to me.

* To speak of symbolically about "eating my body and drinking my blood" would mean the wordfs of Jesus here

Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day

... Really meant....

'WHOEVER PERSECUTES ME AND ASSAULTS ME WILL HAVE ETERNAL LIFE."

Do you think Jesus intended to say that the way to eternal life is to persecute and assault Him?

See the following for the symbolism of eating and drinking another's blood.

Ps 27:2

Isaias 9:18-20

Micah 3:3:2

Sam 23:15-17

Rev 17:6,16

to symbolically eat someone's flesh and blood is to persecute and assault them.

Even Luther got it right about the Eucharist. "of all the early fathers, as many as you can name, not one has ever spoken about the sacraments as these fanatics do. None of them uses such an expressions as "It is simply bread and wine," or "Christ's body and blood are not present." Yet this subject is so frequently discussed by them, it is impossible that they should not at some time have let slip such an expression as "It is simply bread" or "Not that the body of Christ is physically present" or the like; since they are greatly concerned not to mislead the people; actually, they simply proceed to speak as if no one doubted that Christ's body and blod are present. Certainly among so many fathers and so many writings a negative arguement should have turned up at least once, as it happens in other articles; but actually they all stand uniformly and consistently on the affirmative side." (Luther's Works)

*Please reread John Chapter 6. Jesus repeatedly speaks the truth about His real presence in the Eucharist

48 posted on 02/17/2006 1:41:37 PM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: magisterium
Don't bother. Just try and ignore him. I have, repeatedly, asked him NOT to ping me. He does anyways.

I think of his pings as preparation for Lent :)

49 posted on 02/17/2006 1:43:06 PM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt
However we all Know that the Ruach haKodesh breathed all the Gospels and Epistles in Koine Greek for our understanding

And "We all Know that" how, exactly?

There's nothing in Matthew that says "only the Greek text is authoritative". There's nothing in Matthew that says "I'm writing this in Greek because that's the language the Ruach haKodesh wants me to use, although 'Ruach haKodesh' is Hebrew, and Hebrew seemed perfectly okay for Moses to write Torah, but clearly the rules have changed ..."

There is, however, tradition that is at least 1700 years old that states clearly that Matthew was written in Hebrew (which may mean Aramaic, but certainly doesn't mean Greek), at Jerusalem, for the benefit of Jewish converts.

50 posted on 02/17/2006 1:46:42 PM PST by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-294 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson