Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What Is the Magisterium and Why Do We Need It?
Catholic Exchange ^ | July 26, 2006 | Marcellino D'Ambrosio, Ph.D

Posted on 07/27/2006 12:06:07 PM PDT by NYer

All Christians can agree on this, that the Bible is God’s authoritative and inspired word, and ought to govern the faith and life of the Christian community. What’s in accord with Scripture is good. What contradicts Scripture must be rejected.

Opposition in the Name of Fidelity

The Protestant reformers, inspired with zeal for God’s word, went one step further. Under the banner of “sola scriptura” they proclaimed the Bible as the only infallible authority for Christians. That meant that both Tradition and Church authority could be opposed in the name of fidelity to Scripture.

Funny thing, however: from the outset of the Reformation, the movement that agreed on the supreme authority of the Bible disagreed bitterly on what the Bible said. The Protestant church was divided from the beginning. Nearly 500 years later, we see thousands of competing churches claiming the same Bible and sola scriptura heritage.

That’s because the Bible is a collection of written documents. And one of the truths about all written documents, even if they happen to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, is that they can be interpreted differently by different people.

Someone Has to Have the Last Word

The founding fathers of America knew this. That’s why in addition to providing a Constitution for the United States, they set up a court system to serve as the ongoing, living authority to interpret and apply that written document. If the country was to maintain its unity, someone in every generation would have to be entrusted with the authority to determine what was in accord with the Constitution and what was not. In the USA, that’s the responsibility of the Supreme Court.

We can also see this operating in organized sports. Every sport has a rule book. But in baseball for example, bitter arguments arise as to whether a ball is fair or foul, and whether a runner is safe or out. Umpires therefore are an absolute necessity in every game, so that someone has the final say on how the rules are interpreted and applied.

The Lord Jesus Christ is certainly no less wise than the Founding Fathers of the US government and the commissioner of baseball. In establishing His Church, He did not Himself write anything, except in sand (Jn 8:8). Instead, He established the college of the Apostles, gathered around Peter, as a living teaching authority, entrusted with passing on and teaching all that they’d received from Jesus. They did this through oral instruction and eventually some writings. Through the laying on of hands, which we know as the sacrament of Holy Orders, the Apostles in turn entrusted their teaching authority to their successors, called bishops, and imparted to them the same charism of truth that they’d received from the Holy Spirit (CCC 861-862).

Speaking with the Authority of Christ

These successors discerned which of the many Christian books and letters bearing names of Apostles actually were authentic and deserved to be regarded as sacred Scripture. Thanks to them, the phoney gospels of Thomas and Mary Magdalene are not read every Sunday in our churches. They also passed on and interpreted apostolic traditions that were not written down in the New Testament books, like the practice of meeting for weekly worship on Sunday, the day of the Lord’s Resurrection, rather than Saturday, which was the Jewish Sabbath. Finally, they were the ones responsible to authoritatively interpret and apply the sacred Scriptures amidst dispute and controversy, such as the fourth-century controversy over the divinity of Christ.

This teaching role of the successors of the Apostles, gathered around the successor of Peter, is called the "Magisterium,” which simply comes from the Latin word for teaching office. The Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God coming to us through Scripture and Tradition. Instead, the Magisterium is clearly under its authority — it is the servant of the Word. Its role is to faithfully safeguard the truth about God and His plan for our lives which came to full expression in the teaching and saving work of Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh. It is not to add to God’s revelation or to subtract from it, only to faithfully interpret and apply it (CCC 85-86).

The Magisterium is supposed to function much like the Supreme Court at its best, or like a good umpire. But there are a few very big differences. Neither the Constitution of the United States nor the official baseball rulebook are documents inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Bible, on the other hand, is. Neither the Supreme Court nor the World Series’ umpires have received a promise of special divine assistance. But the successors of the Apostles have. Speaking to Apostles, Jesus said “he who hears you, hears Me” (Lk 10:16). The Magisterium speaks with the authority of Christ, guided and empowered by the Spirit of Truth.

So ultimately there is no opposition between the Bible and the Magisterium of the Church. In fact they are so interdependent that the New Testament itself calls the Church “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (I Tm 3:15). Biblical authority and Church authority — you can’t have one without the other.




TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Current Events; Ecumenism; General Discusssion; History; Ministry/Outreach; Religion & Culture; Theology
KEYWORDS: benedictxvi; bible; catholic; curia; holysee; magisterium; pontiff; pope; scripture; solascriptura; vatican
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-117 next last
Dr. D'Ambrosio studied under Avery Cardinal Dulles for his Ph.D. in historical theology and taught for many years at the University of Dallas. He now directs www.crossroadsinitiative.com, which offers Catholic resources for RCIA, adult faith formation, and teens, with a special emphasis on the Year of the Eucharist, the Theology of the Body, the early Church Fathers, and the sacrament of confirmation.

For info on his pilgrimage to the Holy Land, visit www.crossroadsinitiative.com or call 1.800.803.0118.

1 posted on 07/27/2006 12:06:10 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

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

2 posted on 07/27/2006 12:07:00 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Matthew 16:18

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

1 Timothy 3:15

if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Matthew 18:17

If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Also, see tagline.

3 posted on 07/27/2006 12:11:09 PM PDT by Aquinasfan (When you find "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Nearly 500 years later, we see thousands of competing churches claiming the same Bible and sola scriptura heritage.

The Tower of Babel comes to mind.

4 posted on 07/27/2006 12:19:18 PM PDT by Dracian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Neither the Supreme Court nor the World Series’ umpires have received a promise of special divine assistance.

A father one time took his young son and travelled to the big city to take in his first baseball series. In explaining the rules to him, the young son kept asking about the balls and strikes. How does the umpire determine which is which?

Well the father, being affiliated with the organization, had field passes and suggested his son ask the umpire after the games. It turns out that three different umpires were used for each succesive game.

Upon being asked, the first umpire replied, "I call them as I see them".

The second umpire the next day said, "I call them as they are".

After the third game, the third umpire just looked down at the boy and stated, "Kid, they ain't anything until I call them!"

5 posted on 07/27/2006 12:42:12 PM PDT by TotusTuus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Biblical authority and Church authority — you can’t have one without the other.

And when they disagree.......

6 posted on 07/27/2006 12:42:22 PM PDT by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh
And when they disagree.......

They don't.

7 posted on 07/27/2006 1:14:01 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NYer

They don't?

Then why is their a 'concern' about kneeling being a grave (mortal?) sin in some Catholic churches on, I think, the west cost?

I can give other examples from other denominations if they are needed.


8 posted on 07/27/2006 1:23:05 PM PDT by RFC_Gal (There is no tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NYer
The Bible, on the other hand, is. Neither the Supreme Court nor the World Series’ umpires have received a promise of special divine assistance. But the successors of the Apostles have. Speaking to Apostles, Jesus said “he who hears you, hears Me” (Lk 10:16). The Magisterium speaks with the authority of Christ, guided and empowered by the Spirit of Truth.

Jesus was speaking to at least the '70 others' he appointed to go out and preach the Kingdom of God was at hand...They were 'babes' according to Jesus...

There wasn't a Christian in the bunch...There was no gospel to preach...

In fact they are so interdependent that the New Testament itself calls the Church “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (I Tm 3:15). Biblical authority and Church authority — you can’t have one without the other.

HOGWASH...

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

You can't make the 'church' the pillar and ground of the truth in that verse if you even flip it upside down and read it backwards...

The pillar and ground of the truth in that verse is 'God'...And you guys want us to believe that the Holy Spirit is leading your Magisterium to all truth...I don't think so...

9 posted on 07/27/2006 2:29:42 PM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer; aimhigh
And when they disagree.......(aimhigh) They don't. (NYer)

Then please explain to me why your Magesterium cannot admit that the resurrection occurred on a Saturday afternoon (Sabbath) and not a Sunday morning. They have successfully convinced most of organized Christianity of this false tradition for the last 1700 years. They can read as well as I can....and I see in the "Septuagint", the "Vulgate" the "Douay Rheims", and the "King James" all say that the women in [Matthew 28:1] visit the tomb Late on Sabbath and find the tomb empty. Verse 6 says "HE is risen"!

Your organization and Magesterium have built a world wide theology based upon a falsehood....a Sunday morning resurrection and conversely have convinced the entire world of the sanctity of Sunday worship. You will find no where in scripture a repudiation of the Sabbath observance. You will find no command to honor the "Day of the Sun". In fact, you will find, upon investigation, that the early church honored the Sabbath well into the third and fourth centuries.

Your Magesterium has failed you miserably in this regard to the point you should ask yourselves....WHY? Just why are they pushing this non scriptural fairy tale. What is their reason? They have even convinced their daughter churches (Protestants) of this error.

It wasn't until later translations that we began to find statements like "After the Sabbath" taking the place of the original inspired Greek. Anyone with a lick of sense ought to be asking themselves this question. "Why has the mainstream church tried to convince us of a Sunday morning resurrection when the scriptures plainly say Sabbath (Saturday)?"

What's the point of even having an outfit like the "Magesterium" if they cannot even get this simple matter correct? They do disagree with scripture as "aimhigh" has suggested.

The Magesterium should be ashamed of themselves for perpetuating this un-Biblical nonsense.

10 posted on 07/27/2006 2:46:47 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618

Well, let's see, so far using exactly the same Greek bible site you reference, I've verified that Mark 16:2 says "early on the first day of the week, after sunrise" and John 20:1 says "after the Sabbath, early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark", and Luke 24:1 says "on the first day of the week, at early dawn" ... so either you don't consider Mark, Luke, and John to be scriptural, or your exegesis of Matthew is subject to considerable dispute.


11 posted on 07/27/2006 2:55:36 PM PDT by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
You can't make the 'church' the pillar and ground of the truth in that verse if you even flip it upside down and read it backwards

The verse is ambiguous, I think. It reads (no punctuation in the original!) "... in the house of God to conduct oneself which is the assembly of God the living pillar and base of the truth."

Where do the commas go? "pillar and base of the truth" seems like it could be appositive either to "God the living" or to "assembly". But God is really not the pillar and base of the truth, he's the Father of truth and the author of truth. He doesn't merely support truth or uphold it; "his word is truth" according to his Son.

Hence the usual reading, which makes "pillar and base of the truth appositive to "church of the living God".

12 posted on 07/27/2006 3:07:30 PM PDT by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618
The Magesterium should be ashamed of themselves for perpetuating this un-Biblical nonsense.

What ever denomination you are attending should be ashamed of teaching you the unbiblical nonsense they are teaching. Historically Christians have worshiped on Sunday because that is the day our Lord was resurrected. Why do you depart from Bible literalism when it comes to this issue?

If you're such a strict Sabbath observor, why don't you put to death all Christians that are violating that law? That's what the OT law demands.

Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days

Why?

Because, as it states in verse 17, they were a shadow of things to come.

13 posted on 07/27/2006 3:32:18 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Well, let's see, so far using exactly the same Greek bible site you reference, I've verified that Mark 16:2 says "early on the first day of the week, after sunrise" and John 20:1 says "after the Sabbath, early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark", and Luke 24:1 says "on the first day of the week, at early dawn"

Which proves exactly my entire point.

We'll take "em" one by one. Mark 16:2 is speaking of a different group of women. If you notice this group in verse 8 flee from the tomb trembling and bewildered... telling no one. Mary Magdalene and friends who have visited earlier at sundown the previous afternoon, run.... filled with joy, telling the Apostles [Matthew 28:8]. They tell the Apostles in [Luke 24:9-10]. In [John 20:2] they run and tell the Apostles.

The Sabbath spoken of in Mark 16:1 is the first Sabbath of Unleavened Bread and is the Special Sabbath mentioned by John in 19:31. It would have occurred on a Wednesday evening /Thursday that year and is the same Sabbath that Joseph of Arimethia was attempting to entomb the body by in [Luke 23:50-54]. Mark 16:1 should actually be listed as Mark 15:48 as it continues the continuity of the scriptures in chapter 15.

Remember, chapters and verses are not divinely inspired and were left to hands of fallible men to construct.

With reference to your "early at dawn" on the "first day of the week". Dawn is an interesting word in the Greek. It is "Epiphosko" and indeed, one of the uses of this word is the day becoming light. In this particular verse in Luke 24 it means something else. The only other place in scripture where you will find the word "Epiphosko" is Luke 23:54 and the Sabbath was drawing on (beginning).

So, you see, the dawning of the first day of the week means the beginning of the first day of the week....not early morning sunrise. The Hebrews began their days at sunset. Epiphosko meant sundown in Luke and John even clarifies it further by saying it was dark.

so either you don't consider Mark, Luke, and John to be scriptural, or your exegesis of Matthew is subject to considerable dispute.

I consider the Gospels to be very divinely inspired but even Papias in section six says be careful when you read Mark as it is sometimes not in the correct order....he only wrote what he heard Peter say as he was not an eyewitness.

You folks need to dump that Magesterium....and probably hire me!

14 posted on 07/27/2006 4:08:26 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FJ290
Historically Christians have worshiped on Sunday because that is the day our Lord was resurrected.

Prove it!

Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days

Colossians 2:8. Paul earlier is speaking of "hollow and deceptive" philosophy and tells these previously pagan Colossians to ignore anyone who criticizes them for observing God's Holydays.. Would that be your way of characterizing God's ordained celebrations....hollow and deceptive?

See post #14....I'm telling you guys, you need to dump those folks. They are leading you astray!

15 posted on 07/27/2006 4:22:09 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Iscool; Campion
The pillar and ground of the truth in that verse is 'God'...And you guys want us to believe that the Holy Spirit is leading your Magisterium to all truth...I don't think so...

Actually, the text doesn't allow this interpretation. "God" is in the genitive case, but "pillar" and "ground" are in the nominative:

quae est ecclesia Dei vivi, columna et firmamentum veritatis. - Vulgate

he^tis estin ekkle^sia theou zo^ntos, stulos kai hedraio^ma te^s ale^theias - Koine

But if "pillar and ground" were being used in apposition to "God," as you suggest, they'd be in the genitive. On the other hand, "church" is in the nominative. Therefore the grammatical reading is that the "church of the living God" is the "pillar and ground of the truth."

16 posted on 07/27/2006 4:29:34 PM PDT by gbcdoj (Destruction is thy own, O Israel; thy help is only in Me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618
Prove it!

You and I have discussed this before. The Bible proves it.

Paul earlier is speaking of "hollow and deceptive" philosophy and tells these previously pagan Colossians to ignore anyone who criticizes them for observing God's Holydays.. Would that be your way of characterizing God's ordained celebrations....hollow and deceptive?

Notice how you evaded answering my question about why don't you kill Christians for not observing your "Sabbath." Why can't you answer that? OT law demands it.

Your interpretation of Colossians is erroneous, IMO. It is exactly the opposite in fact. St. Paul is telling these Christians to not let the Jews critize them for not observing the new moons, sabbaths, feast days, etc. He clearly states they were a shadow of things to come.How could paganism be a "shadow of things to come??"

See post #14....I'm telling you guys, you need to dump those folks. They are leading you astray!

Someone is leading someone astray here and it isn't the Catholic Church.

17 posted on 07/27/2006 4:53:40 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618; Campion
The Sabbath spoken of in Mark 16:1 is the first Sabbath of Unleavened Bread and is the Special Sabbath mentioned by John in 19:31. It would have occurred on a Wednesday evening /Thursday that year and is the same Sabbath that Joseph of Arimethia was attempting to entomb the body by in [Luke 23:50-54]. Mark 16:1 should actually be listed as Mark 15:48 as it continues the continuity of the scriptures in chapter 15.

Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2, Colossians 2:16-17, and Revelation 1:10 indicate that, even during New Testament times, the Sabbath is no longer binding and that Christians are to worship on the Lord’s day, Sunday, instead.

The early Church Fathers compared the observance of the Sabbath to the observance of the rite of circumcision, and from that they demonstrated that if the apostles abolished circumcision (Gal. 5:1-6), so also the observance of the Sabbath must have been abolished. The following quotations show that the first Christians understood this principle and gathered for worship on Sunday.  

From The Didache

"But every Lord’s day . . . gather yourselves together and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned" (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).

From The Letter of Barnabas

"We keep the eighth day [Sunday] with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead" (Letter of Barnabas 15:6–8 [A.D. 74]).

18 posted on 07/27/2006 5:29:27 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618
"You folks need to dump that Magesterium....and probably hire me!"

Bible church personal interpretation of the above:

"You folks need to dump that Magesterium....and probably hire me....

...to lead you all down into the Smoking Section."
19 posted on 07/27/2006 5:41:40 PM PDT by dollars_for_dogma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: FJ290
Notice how you evaded answering my question about why don't you kill Christians for not observing your "Sabbath." Why can't you answer that? OT law demands it.

I don't evade anything. I don't kill Christians for being deceived....would you? Pay special attention to verse 13.

Your interpretation of Colossians is erroneous, IMO.

Well, your opinion is wrong....and here is why. Colossians 2:14 Paul writes, speaking of Christ, "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way....nailing it to the cross." In Ephesians 2:15 Paul says, "Having abolished in his (Christ's) flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make himself of two, one new man, so making peace.

These verses do not do away with God's Laws. The term "ordinances" is translated from the Greek, DOGMA, referring to HUMAN laws and decrees. You find this evident in Mark 7:6-9.....the traditions of men. Again, these verses are not referring to God's Law.

Our Saviour did not do away with any part of God's Law [Matthew 5:17] and this would include the Ten Commandments.

Now, why don't you explain to me why your Magesterium cannot understand the simple language of Matthew 28:1?

20 posted on 07/27/2006 6:36:13 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj

Been many moons since I was concerned about diagramming sentences...

Actually, the text doesn't allow this interpretation. "God" is in the genitive case, but "pillar" and "ground" are in the nominative:

Although I don't disagree that God is genitive, I'd say it's pretty difficult to determine from the sentence structure where pillar and ground fit in...

If after God there was no comma, but an 'and', an 'or', or even a 'but', I can see where pillar and ground could be nominative...But there is a comma...

You may say that the 'original' doesn't have a comma...But I'd like to point out that without a comma, the sentence wouldn't be much of a sentence...AND, the Douay-Rheims bible, copied from the Vulgate has the exact wording and comma as the KJV...

In conclusion, I'd say the answer lies in the rest of the scripture...And I'd also says it's pretty conclusive that Jesus Christ is the 'ground' (the Chief Cornerstone, the Foundation,) of the church...That makes God the 'pillar' (stulos- a post (“style”), that is, (figuratively) support: - pillar.)...

21 posted on 07/27/2006 6:44:26 PM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: dollars_for_dogma
Bible church personal interpretation of the above:

You need to learn what private interpretation is...I didn't see any interpretation...It's call believing what you read while comparing scripture with scripture...

22 posted on 07/27/2006 6:47:53 PM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RFC_Gal
They don't? Then why is their a 'concern' about kneeling being a grave (mortal?) sin in some Catholic churches on, I think, the west cost?

Disobedience? If the Magisterium teaches something and some churches disagree with/disobey that teaching, does that mean the teaching or the authority of the Magisterium is flawed?
23 posted on 07/27/2006 7:07:21 PM PDT by Conservative til I die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618

What is this, Judaizer propaganda? Yours is an extremely minority opinion, both inside the Catholic Church and outside.


24 posted on 07/27/2006 7:08:28 PM PDT by Conservative til I die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618
You folks need to dump that Magesterium....and probably hire me!

The sad thing is you're probably serious. Who do I trust? Jesus, Peter, Matthew, Mark, John, Luke, etc. or Diego1618?
25 posted on 07/27/2006 7:09:58 PM PDT by Conservative til I die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2, Colossians 2:16-17, and Revelation 1:10 indicate that, even during New Testament times, the Sabbath is no longer binding and that Christians are to worship on the Lord’s day, Sunday, instead.

Balderdash!

Acts 20:7 is describing a Havdalah (after the Sabbath) meal. If you notice Paul is speaking until midnight which would be the first part of the first day of the week....having begun at sundown. He is expecting to leave the next morning (Sunday) a normal work and travel day. Acts 20:7 This says nothing about a religious service.....it is a meal!

1 Corinthians 16:2

This is a collection for the poor in Jerusalem. See Romans 15:25 and Acts 11:28-30. This is not in any way shape or form a religious service.

Colossians 2:16

See post #20.

Revelation 1:10

What in the world does this have to do with Sunday? The Lord's day was nothing more than the Apostle John being brought forward in vision to Joel 2:31," The Terrible Day of The Lord." Remember, John was in the spirit [Revelation 4:2]....not sitting on the beach at Patmos some Sunday morning!

From The Didache

This is not scripture....it is tradition. That is the main problem with your Magesterium....it is mostly human tradition.

Explain Matthew 28:1 to me, convincing me that our Saviour did not rise on Sabbath afternoon about sundown. I realize that you cannot do this as it destroys your entire theology. You also cannot show me a specific command by Jesus or the Apostles to ignore the Sabbath and celebrate "The Day of the Sun."

26 posted on 07/27/2006 7:11:50 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618

Man, you're arrogant.


27 posted on 07/27/2006 7:12:42 PM PDT by Conservative til I die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh

And they disagreed with... whom? Luther said when they disagree with me that is the same as disagreeing with the Holy Ghost. There are many Luthers.


28 posted on 07/27/2006 7:17:04 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618
Our Saviour did not do away with any part of God's Law [Matthew 5:17] and this would include the Ten Commandments

I agree that He didn't abolish the Ten Commandments and all the moral laws, but I disagree that we are still under bondage of the Mosaic laws. Christ is the fulfillment of the Law and we are only under His law.

Galatians 3:9-14

Consequently, those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham who had faith.

For all who depend on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not persevere in doing all the things written in the book of the law."

And that no one is justified before God by the law is clear, for "the one who is righteous by faith will live."

But the law does not depend on faith; rather, "the one who does these things will live by them."

Christ ransomed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree,"

that the blessing of Abraham might be extended to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

I think that is patently obvious there is now a new law and that law is Christ that we are under.

I don't evade anything. I don't kill Christians for being deceived....would you? Pay special attention to verse 13.

But you are going against the law! The Lord commanded the Israelites to put to death a man who collected sticks on the Sabbath. See Numbers 15:32. What good is the law if you're going to make exceptions to the rule? Which one of you Saturday Sabbath keepers is going to come forward and stone us Sunday worshiping Christians?

Well, I can answer your dilemma for you. It's right in the book of Hosea 2:11

And I will cause all her mirth to cease, her solemnities, her new moons, her sabbaths, and all her festival times.

Here we come full circle to what St. Paul was saying that those things were shadows. And... Hosea 2:20

"And I will espouse thee to me in faith: and thou shalt know that I am the Lord.

Now, why don't you explain to me why your Magesterium cannot understand the simple language of Matthew 28:1?

Oh they understand it my friend. Their magesterial ancestors were living it!

29 posted on 07/27/2006 7:17:59 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Conservative til I die
What is this, Judaizer propaganda? Yours is an extremely minority opinion, both inside the Catholic Church and outside.

Matthew 24:5.....If you are betting on the majority you are betting on the wrong horse! Many shall come and lead many astray!

Can you explain the very clear language of Matthew 28:1?

30 posted on 07/27/2006 7:21:52 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618

Our Lord and St. Paul are speaking against the tradition of the Pharisees, and Paul specifically against the notion that non-Jews must accept the law.


31 posted on 07/27/2006 7:23:51 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Conservative til I die
Who do I trust? Jesus, Peter, Matthew, Mark, John, Luke, etc. or Diego1618?

I notice you did not include the Magesterium in that grouping. Step in the right direction!

32 posted on 07/27/2006 7:24:21 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: FJ290
Their magesterial majisterial ancestors were living it!
33 posted on 07/27/2006 7:28:37 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Conservative til I die
Man, you're arrogant.

Your job is to tell where I am wrong. You need to quote chapter and verse. If that is not possible for you to do... we cannot lower our discussion to this level. I'm sorry you feel that way.

34 posted on 07/27/2006 7:29:08 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
You need to learn what private interpretation is...I didn't see any interpretation...

Well, it was there. And it was my personal interpretation of his post. Maybe it meant something else to you.

It's call believing what you read while comparing scripture with scripture...

Ok. Compare John 6:53-57 with 1 Corinthians 11:27-30

and then report back with what you believe you have read.
35 posted on 07/27/2006 7:31:24 PM PDT by dollars_for_dogma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618
"Can you explain the very clear language of" John 6:53-57?
36 posted on 07/27/2006 7:34:46 PM PDT by dollars_for_dogma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: FJ290
I agree that He didn't abolish the Ten Commandments and all the moral laws

Where did he tell us to ignore the Sabbath? Where is the Biblical command to honor Sunday?

The Lord commanded the Israelites to put to death a man who collected sticks on the Sabbath. See Numbers 15:32

There is currently not a "Nation of Israel" under the direct Law of God. There was at that time. There will be again, I'm sure. In the meantime I will obey the commandment not to kill..... as should you.

I can answer your dilemma for you. It's right in the book of Hosea 2:11

I guess you don't understand that the Lord has given Israel a bill of divorce here and these actions are intended to be a punishment.

How come no one can tell me why the Magesterium cannot properly interpret the plain language of Matthew 28:1?

37 posted on 07/27/2006 7:58:04 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
If after God there was no comma, but an 'and', an 'or', or even a 'but', I can see where pillar and ground could be nominative...But there is a comma...

Neither the Greek, nor the Vulgate for that matter, has commas (or even spaces for that matter). Punctuation wasn't invented yet.

From your comments you appear to be unfamiliar with the nature of the Greek language. In Greek (also in Latin), nouns are "declined" according to their case: they actually change in form. For instance, "theou" is the genitive form of "theos," God. Likewise, "ekklesia" (church) is a nominative, and so are "stulos" and "hedraio^ma." (pillar and foundation) If they weren't nominatives, but rather genitives agreeing with "theou," they'd have a different word-form.

AND, the Douay-Rheims bible, copied from the Vulgate has the exact wording and comma as the KJV...

Rheims note/commentary on 1 Tim. 3:15:

15 "The pillar and ground of the truth"... Therefore the church of the living God can never uphold error, nor bring in corruptions, superstition, or idolatry.

38 posted on 07/27/2006 8:01:16 PM PDT by gbcdoj (Destruction is thy own, O Israel; thy help is only in Me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618
How come no one can tell me why the Magesterium cannot properly interpret the plain language of Matthew 28:1?


39 posted on 07/27/2006 8:07:26 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618
How come no one can tell me why the Magesterium cannot properly interpret the plain language of Matthew 28:1?

Let's see if you can get "the plain language of" John 6:53-57 right...

then we'll know if it's worth answering your question regarding Matthew 28:1.
40 posted on 07/27/2006 8:15:28 PM PDT by dollars_for_dogma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Our Lord and St. Paul are speaking against the tradition of the Pharisees, and Paul specifically against the notion that non-Jews must accept the law.

Absolutely incorrect! The church at Colossae consisted of newly converted, previously pagan, Greeks. They had no inkling of God's holy days, festivals and Sabbaths prior to their conversion. Paul is instructing them in the observance of the ordinances....."Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath Day."

Why in the world would Paul waste his time explaining something to these folks if he then wanted them to ignore it?

Explain Matthew 28:1 to me.

41 posted on 07/27/2006 8:35:43 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: FJ290

Now that's got to be the funniest thing I've seen on this forum in a very long time. Good for you, FJ290!


42 posted on 07/27/2006 8:39:02 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: dollars_for_dogma
Ok. Compare John 6:53-57 with 1 Corinthians 11:27-30

Sure, you can do that...But you can't stop there...You have to look in the context of those verses you state...

Joh 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

So the wafer and wine you eat/drink at your church gives life to the world??? Is that the salvation Jesus offered???

And compare

Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Are you saying you no longer hunger or thirst??? That's the context...

Here's some more context...

Joh 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Have you ever seen Jesus??? Do you see Jesus when your priest turns that little cookie into Jesus??? It says here all you have to do is look at Jesus and believe on him and you'll be raised up in the last day...You don't have to eat the cracker...What a contradiction is this???

But you take one or two verses, totally ignore the context and build a Religion and a Magisterium on it...

and then report back with what you believe you have read.

I know what I read...And I know what you didn't read...

Joh 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live forever.

Interesting verse...But what Jesus DID NOT SAY is; This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as manna, but what He said was not as your fathers eat...>p>

Jesus is the spiritual manna...

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

If you wanna see more, let me know...

43 posted on 07/27/2006 8:39:26 PM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
If you wanna see more, let me know...

Well, ya', a little more....

you skipped over all of John 6:53-57...

and completely ignored 1 Corinthians 11:27-30.

But I have faith that you can persevere.
44 posted on 07/27/2006 8:49:32 PM PDT by dollars_for_dogma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618

1) Obviously he was referring to Jewish customs. You think the Greeks knew nothing about the Jews? 2) At dawn on the day after the Sabbath, Mary Magdalem and the other Mary came near to contemplate the tomb. So?


45 posted on 07/27/2006 8:52:44 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Conservative til I die

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.


46 posted on 07/27/2006 8:59:45 PM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
It says here all you have to do is look at Jesus and believe on him and you'll be raised up in the last day...

You don't have to eat the cracker...

What a contradiction is this???


Well the above indicates a public school education, but I can still work with that...

John 6:53-57 says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."....

"For my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed..."

Usually, bible christians consider the bible to be literal...

except, of course, when considering John 6:53-57....

only here do we find that common words such as "eat",

"drink", "flesh" and "blood" lose their ordinary meaning.
47 posted on 07/27/2006 9:20:17 PM PDT by dollars_for_dogma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: dollars_for_dogma

***Let's see if you can get "the plain language of" John 6:53-57 right...***

"I am the true vine"

Yep in plain language... Jesus is a plant.


48 posted on 07/27/2006 9:28:15 PM PDT by alamo boy (I left my heart in San Antonio)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: dollars_for_dogma
Let's see if you can get "the plain language of" John 6:53-57 right...

John 6:53-57 How's that?

Matthew 26:26-29

Mark 14:22-25

Luke 22:17-20

I don't really understand what your point here is....but, it is obvious the Passover symbolism is being changed from that of a slaughtered lamb, in the temple, on the 14th of Nisan to that of our Saviour being sacrificed for us in its stead. The bread and the wine, being symbolic, as his body and his blood.

The Apostle Paul clarifies it further in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8 where he says Christ is our new Passover and let us continue to keep the feast....which he and the Apostles did. In fact they continued to keep the Passover until it was finally outlawed by the Roman Church/State in the fourth century.

Our Saviour was crucified at about 3:00 p.m. on the 14th of Nisan as the lambs were being slaughtered in the temple. It was the Day of preparation and this was the Sabbath I spoke of in an earlier post that is mentioned in Mark 16:1. Your Magesterium is confused about that because they think that the Sabbath is the weekly Sabbath and hence the incorrect story to all of you folks.

Here is some information on the early Fathers still celebrating Passover well into the second century. As you can see it is the Roman Church that has it all wrong. I'm sure they had a magesterium of sorts then also.

49 posted on 07/27/2006 9:29:18 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: dollars_for_dogma

***Usually, bible christians consider the bible to be literal...***

Nah, we realize that the authors use figurative language at times. We accept a figure when it is intended and do not force when when not intended. Context helps determine intent.

We call it normal interpretation.

BTW, my tagline: "I left my heart in San Antonio" the word heart is intended figuratively, otherwise typing this would be difficult.

See how it works?


50 posted on 07/27/2006 9:32:27 PM PDT by alamo boy (I left my heart in San Antonio)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-117 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