Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
The power to bind and loose, definitely, in Matthew 19. But the keys are not mentioned there; the renaming that came with the keys suggests a level of personal graft of Peter onto Christ. We can certainly seek the proper intended role of the Roman See's primacy. My opinion is that the imperial papacy is a unique product of the Latin particular Church, which extends to the other Churches sort of by osmosis. If you actually look at how the Papacy works with respect to the Catholic Oriental churches (so called Uniates), you will see a far greater consiliarity. But then, it is the Latin Church that was bearing the brunt of the Reformation heresy in the past several centuries.
I consider that assessment of THE MESSAGE
to be sooooooooooooo far removed from fact as to say far more about the . . . source(s) of the opinion . . . than of THE MESSAGE.
The Douay
LOL. No thanks. Doesn't catch the flavor of the original near enough--particularly in modern language. So far removed as to be functionally inaccurate to a disturbing amount.
But, it's been a long time since I read any verse in it.
Do they have an updated modern language version?
Could be any number of demons.
= = =
NOT AT ALL
For that absurdity to be true, Christ would have had to have been lying when He declared to test the spirits--and those which confessed that He came in the flesh, etc. were of Him.
Sheesh.
I did not mean to imply that the part from you that I quoted in 5048 was representing your beliefs. I simply tried to indicate the part of your 5001 that I was responding to. My sentence, "I think that the Protestant belief would be ..." agrees with the Protestant concept of election, as far as "from the foundation of the world" goes.
I try to quote something when I am responding, so that the reader can catch the meaning by reference. But I try not to re-quote the entire post. Sometime, and this time, my quoting of the relevant part of the post becomes misleading, and I apologize.
I agree with everything I underlined.
In other words you disagree that the final particular Judgement at the end of one's life is secure, and you don't like to call it particular. But this is a major difference. While God knows His elect form the foundation of the world, we don't; we are given hope, but not firm knowledge. This is why the gospel is also a book of exhortations to good behavior (as well as, of course, the Good News of Christ's salvific work). The scripture is with me, and my prooftext is the opening passage of 2 Peter: "brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election".
Do you know of Reformers who cry in the town square "Once Saved Always Saved" and then go out and lead a life of total depravity?
Well, I know of Luther who broke his vows by marrying a nun, a horrid thing in my humble opinion. The Protestants dropped the teaching on the sinfullness of contraception; they allow remarriage after divorce, -- and I am not bringing up the proabort and pro-gay marriage Protestant groupings that you rightly consider beyond the pale. These two, contraception and remarriage, are not matters of interpretation of the scripture or matters of tradition, they are solidly scriptural, yet the Protestant teaching en masse caved in under the modernistic cultural pressure.
I agree that no pastor calls for total depravity when he himself understands it as such. My point is simply that once the presumption of election is made by someone, a door to sin opens wider.
Do you see the suspicion anywhere in the Catechism you quoted?
Douay is word-by-word Vulgate, and is the closest to the Greek original that I know. There are one or two inaccuracies that I now of. King James is worse, but still serviceable. The modern translations are outright obfuscatory.
What are you referring to in the Scripture?>
Do you believe you are saved by Faith Alone or do you believe your salvation is also contingent on you doing certain things?
Eleven English translations, Greek NT, LXX, Hebrew, Latin, all major languages. Up to four side-to-side. Searchable in all languages. Complete canon. I cannot recommend this tool enough.
Of course not. The Bible says the opposite.
But that does not make the Gift unfree. I am still in the dark as to where you saw "suspicion of the gift" in the Catechism.
I think it's impossible to separate the two. Trying to do so only leads to confusion.
Of course not. The Bible says the opposite.
So for you the free gift of GRACE through FAITH is not enough for you to be saved. You believe you must do something to pay for this gift?
I am still in the dark as to where you saw "suspicion of the gift" in the Catechism.
I didn't look.
The quote from your catechism was to show you that even your church believed the "rock" was faith in Jesus not Peter. It is also interesting in that it also shows a Calvinist bent in that it says "drawn by the Father".
What could you possibly pay to buy the right to be with GOD for eternity?
I just do what the Bible tells me. The gift is given -- we cannot pay for it even if we wanted to. But works are necessary in order for one to be saved by that gift.
even your church believed the "rock" was faith in Jesus not Peter.
"On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church" is a completely Catholic statement. Why is it even controversial?
I have only been Catholic around 12 years, so I am diffient about commenting, but I htink the usual breakdown is that RCs say Jesus meant He was building His Church on Peter, while Protestants (certainly that's the way it was in my seminary) say it was built on Faith.
So you must pay for this gift. If the gift is contingent upon you doing works to receive it how is it a gift?
The works are part of the gift. The merit from the works is part of the gift.
Christ's Church is built on the faith of St. Peter revealed by the Father is the complete expression of it.
What Dawg said.
Many Used Jesus Salesmen are trying to sell Jesus' FREE Gift of Salvation by faith in that gift.. BOTH Roman Catholic and Protestant salesmen.. even though protestants are protesting nothing..
These salesmen demand that you come to them to purchase(by some act) Jesus.. and protest that you DON'T even NEED THEM.. Quite logical really..
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.