Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Primacy of Peter
V for Victory ^ | August 3, 2012

Posted on 08/04/2012 1:55:40 PM PDT by NYer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-122 next last
To: Natural Law

Not understanding the need doesn’t make it go away, NL. As I said, the Scripture is the writings/thoughts of the apostles in the NT, and I’d like to see their thoughts on the subject at hand. It seems to me their opinions should be the guide. Thanks


51 posted on 08/05/2012 2:51:03 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Theo; RaisingCain; Salvation
FR catholics love their denomination more than they love Jesus.

There's a glaring error in that statement. Catholicism is not in and of itself a denomination. Since it is the Church Christ instituted, other Christian sects arose from it. Thus, the "types" of Christianity are merely variations of the original, the Catholic Church, and must be denominations.

52 posted on 08/05/2012 5:01:02 AM PDT by NYer (Without justice, what else is the State but a great band of robbers? - St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

No offense taken, but the Catholic Church at the time was quite clear that they objected to commoners reading vernacular translations.

http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc02/htm/iv.v.lxi.htm

http://books.google.com/books?id=3D0UAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA640&lpg=PA640&dq=Synod+of+Toulouse+in+1229+bible&source=bl&ots=do_-xZ4s-a&sig=PD8RRWJD3MyAZisSjIV7KeTo_LI&hl=en&ei=zdXITbXVFoG8sAO1g62SAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCEQ6AEwATgU#v=onepage&q=Synod%20of%20Toulouse%20in%201229%20bible&f=false


53 posted on 08/05/2012 6:56:23 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberalism: "Ex faslo quodlibet" - from falseness, anything follows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

“If you are unable to appreciate the depth of these arguments just say so. Why not just admit that the explanations are well beyond your intellectual grasp.”

Please confine your comments to rational statements, rather than attacks on my intelligence. Personal attacks benefit no one.

I’ve posted for years on these threads. There are not many who would claim I lack the intelligence to read your very long cut & paste - if I wanted. However, as I pointed out from just a small clip, your C&P is in error. Tyndale was not attacked for having an inaccurate translation - at least, no one has ever shown why his translation was more inaccurate than any other translation attempted. Thomas More tried and made a fool of himself.

“I guess Aquinas and Benedict XVI whom TIME magazine has been referred to as the “theological Einstein of our time” are all misguided.”

To the extent that they contradict the clear teaching of scripture, yes. There is no Purgatory. There are no indulgences. The scriptures know nothing about human priests offering sacrifices for our sins, a claim clearly rejected in the book of Hebrews. When forced to choose between Benedict XVI and scripture, I’ll choose the latter.


54 posted on 08/05/2012 7:04:40 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberalism: "Ex faslo quodlibet" - from falseness, anything follows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

In the Council of Jerusalem, Peter most clearly was NOT acting as Pope. James was the head of the council.

And Paul rebuked Petr publicly for adopting false theology in Galatians.

If Peter was the Vicar of Christ, Paul wouldn’t have needed to defend his being an Apostle. All he would have to write is, “Peter, Vicar of Christ, has declared I am an Apostle” - and “discussion ceased and the people fell silent. They unanimously accepted his decision. “

It didn’t happen that way...

“Who was the other man that St. Paul was referring to in Romans 15:20?”

Hmmm...

“20 And thus I aspired to preach the gospel, not where Christ was already named, so that I would not build on another man’s foundation; 21 but as it is written,

“ They who had no news of Him shall see,
And they who have not heard shall understand.”” - Romans 15

If he was referring to Peter (and I do not think he was), then he was expressly saying that Peter was NOT the foundation and that he was NOT building on Peter, but working apart from him.


55 posted on 08/05/2012 7:12:15 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberalism: "Ex faslo quodlibet" - from falseness, anything follows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: NYer
This is a fun thread to follow. People who are neck deep in the heresy of Core, living in the most Protestant, wealthiest, and most powerful nation in history, are being swallowed alive by drugs and sexual immorality but insist that the tens of thousands of different heresies they embrace are what Christ had in mind when He prayed that His Church should be as one.

No doubt the Arian heretics who were slaughtered by the millions when Iz Lame spread were sure they were correct as well and it's just a coincidence that Iz Lame was stopped at almost exactly limits of the spread of the Arian. Likewise, there are probably people who can't grasp the fact that God Himself slaughtered Core for exactly the same thing Protestantism teaches. Others, though, clearly understand that they're following heresy and play little games to feed their ego and deny the obvious which is that they're so dedicated to Self Worship that they cannot accept Christ placing anyone in authority over them.

No Priesthood, no sacrifice. No sacrifice, no salvation. That's the simple Truth of Scripture from beginning to end and Christ left His Church with a Priesthood that through the power of the Holy Spirit enables us to partake of the Eucharist which is the final and ongoing sacrifice.

This nation is clearly suffering due to being dedicated to what Jude explicitly warned against and yet those Jude calls clouds without rain can't understand why they're not bearing good fruit and continue to fragment. Seeing such folks argue that more of the same thing they've been doing will turn things around would be halarious if it wasn't so sad. Regards

56 posted on 08/05/2012 8:49:08 AM PDT by Rashputin (Only Newt can defeat both the Fascist democrats and the Vichy GOP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish; All
Making the thread "about" another Freeper is a form of "making it personal."

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

57 posted on 08/05/2012 9:26:12 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Again and again you keep ignoring the pointedly and indisputably strong scriptural and traditional bases of the rebuttal to your arguments made by the Augustinian Club and then conclude that this is a “personal “ attack. No, it is not when you engage in theological arguments and then side step the rebuttal. How else should one conclude? You think by repeating yourself that Catholic teaching “contradict(s) the clear teaching of scripture” you make your case. Scriptural interpretation is not simply taking a piece of text form here and there and making you case. Against the flow of a 2000 year plus tradition of interpretation by some of the most illustrious scholars and early Church fathers, and converts to Catholicism like the brilliant minds of GK Chesterton and Cardinal St. Thomas Newman, you make sophomoric contrary claims and hold out your exegetical views as pre-eminent. This is risible if not for the fact that it relates to notions of eternal salvation.


58 posted on 08/05/2012 9:31:17 AM PDT by Steelfish (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; bike800
From the link posted by boatbums:

They set forth precedents for the exercise of sovereign authority of the popes over the universal Church prior to the fourth century and make it appear that the popes had always exercised sovereign dominion and had ultimate authority even over Church Councils. Nicholas I (858–867) was the first to use them as the basis for advancing his claims of authority.

Dear friend, if anything is a forgery, it is the nonsensical trash posted at your link. Writing in 251 A.D., St. Cyprian of Carthage noted:

And again He says to him [Peter] after His resurrection: 'Feed my sheep' (John 21:17). On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all our shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that his is in the Church?"

Fathers of the Church throughout the early centuries of the Church might be cited for hours, but what no one can provide is the testimony of even one of them denying this primacy. Even when there were disputed matters, such as involved St. Cyprian of Carthage and the pope, he still insisted on the primacy, writing in 255 or 256 A.D:

Nevertheless, in order that unity might be clearly shown, He established by His own authority a source for that unity, which takes its beginning from one man alone. Indeed, the other Apostles were that also which Peter was, being endowed with an equal portion of dignity and power; but the origin is grounded in unity, so that it may be made clear that there is but one Church of Christ. Indeed this oneness of the Church is indicated in the Song of Songs, when the Holy Spirit, speaking in the Lord's name, says, 'One is my dove, my perfect one, to her mother the only one, the chosen of her that bore her." If someone does not hold fast to this unity of the Church, can he imagine that he holds the faith? If he resists and withstands the Church, can he still be confident that he is in the Church, when the blessed Apostle Paul teaches this very thing and displays the sacred sign of unity when he says: 'One body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one Baptism, one God' (Eph 4:4-6).

59 posted on 08/05/2012 9:44:09 AM PDT by NYer (Without justice, what else is the State but a great band of robbers? - St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

“No Priesthood, no sacrifice. No sacrifice, no salvation. That’s the simple Truth of Scripture from beginning to end and Christ left His Church with a Priesthood that through the power of the Holy Spirit enables us to partake of the Eucharist which is the final and ongoing sacrifice.”


Final and ongoing sacrifice. Isn’t that an inherent contradiction?

Joh_19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

What part of “It is finished” do you not understand?

Heb 7:26-27 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; (27) Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

What part of “Who needeth not daily” do you not understand? Maybe you argue it is okay once on Sundays!?

Here’s one that should cause you to go silent and end discussion (From your 1st Pope Peter):

1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

What part of “ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood” and “ye are lively stones” do you NOT understand!? But yet you would like to bind me to your Roman precepts and be submitted to Priests, when I myself am a King and Priest in the sight of God?


60 posted on 08/05/2012 9:55:55 AM PDT by RaisingCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish; CynicalBear; Salvation; markomalley
We have seen the untold damage done by the heretical offshoots with over 30,000 non-Catholic denominations.

Luther opened Pandora's box when he nailed his 95 theses to the doors of the church in Wittenberg. Even more disturbing, however, is how christians evangelize other christians. Last week, I received a phone call from a catholic convert to Jehovah's Witnesses. It began with a simple approach, she wanted to send me a "prayer tract" to read during tough times. I explained that I was a practicing catholic. She persisted, indicating this was a small prayer from Psalms. In probing deeper, that is when I learned about her disagreement with the Catholic Church. I invited her to come home to the Eucharist. She responded by proselytizng even more - the fallacy of the Trinity, saying Peter was never in Rome, et al.

I explained that scripture prohibits her from evangelizing christians. Now it was her turn to balk.

Thus I aspire to proclaim the gospel not where Christ has already been named, so that I do not build on another's foundation, but as it is written: "Those who have never been told of him shall see, and those who have never heard of him shall understand."
Romans 15:20-21

I suggested she try to promote her tracts with local area muslims. I reminded her that once baptized a catholic, she remained catholic and was welcome to return. The call caught me off guard and the conversation burned a hole in my heart. How can anyone walk away from Christ, present in the Eucharist and embrace a cult. I have been praying for her ever since.

61 posted on 08/05/2012 10:28:01 AM PDT by NYer (Without justice, what else is the State but a great band of robbers? - St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Jehovah’s Witnesses are a religious cult who deny that Jesus Christ is God. Other than that, they agree with Catholicism on power, control and salvation through the works of the law.


62 posted on 08/05/2012 10:36:54 AM PDT by RaisingCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
"No offense taken, but the Catholic Church at the time was quite clear that they objected to commoners reading vernacular translations."

When we deal in partial truths it is important that it is not done with an intent to deceive. While it is indeed true that some vernacular translations were banned to all but the clergy it was not a blanket prohibition. The Church, with its teaching authority mandate, had a duty to ensure that all vernacular translations were accurate and were published without the heretical margin notes that were supporting many heretical movements of the day. Compounding this was the very real situation where there were no written languages for the many, many languages and dialects spoken across Europe and no one literate in them to benefit from a vernacular language had there been a suitable vernacular Bible available.

Lastly, the notion that vernacular Bibles were a Protestant invention or a product of the Reformation is preposterous. Only the presumption that anyone or everyone can assume the authority to accurately interpret and translate the Bible is.

Peace be with you

63 posted on 08/05/2012 10:42:15 AM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: RaisingCain
Folks who are their own personal priesthood, final authority in all matters of interpretation, and all around reviser and redefiner of all things Biblical, typically use the Lego Block Method of Scripture Interpretation in order to twist Scripture to suit themselves, usually by taking random verses and even portions of verses to string together into whatever suits them at the moment. Such folks, for example, have no problem "proving" that queers should be ordained, queers should be allowed to marry one another, or that there should be no hierarchy or priesthood. As everyone knows, there are people who find all of those things and many more in Scripture because that's what they want to find there.

Looking at the heresy of Core, we find the following in the New Testament which warns:

Jude 1:11 Woe unto them, for they have gone in the way of Cain: and after the error of Balaam they have for reward poured out themselves, and have perished in the contradiction of Core.

Abortion by contraception most certainly qualifies as the way of Cain, and the error of Balaam is pharmacia, sexual infidelity, sexual immorality, sacrifices to idols, and unnatural sexual behavior. The vast majority of US Protestants (probably in other countries as well) either ignore or accept as harmless all but a few drugs drugs, remarriage after divorce, and contraception, they also at least tacitly accept homosexuality, the health wealth and prosperity gospel to some degree if not completely. Whether the majority of folks want to look at reality or not, that means the vast majority of Protestants in this country cover all the bases of Balaam with some taking exception to one or two but never all of the Balaam idolitry. As for the contradiction of Core, of course, it's exactly what Luther and all Protestants preach, described here:

Numbers 16:1 And behold Core the son of Isaar, the son of Caath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiron the sons of Eliab, and Hon the son of Pheleth of the children of Ruben,
Numbers 16:2 Rose up against Moses, and with them two hundred and fifty others of the children of Israel, leading men of the synagogue, and who in the time of assembly were called by name.
Numbers 16:3 And when they had stood up against Moses and Aaron, they said: Let it be enough for you, that all the multitude consisteth of holy ones, and the Lord is among them: Why lift you up yourselves above the people of the Lord?

It's crystal clear, then, that the heresy is for Core to claim that all are holy and since all are holy all are the same as priests, leading naturally to the heresy itself which is that there should be no priesthood over the people but each person is sufficient unto themselves. Along with ignoring the command to obey your prelates, all Protestants ignore the heresy of Core by virtue of the fact that it is intrinsic to all Protestantism.

Along with a description of the heresy, naturally we're told what the proper response to those who follow and teach such a heresy should be, here:

Numbers 16:26 He said to the multitude: Depart from the tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest you be involved in their sins.

We're also told the proper response to those who have been told the truth multiple times and refuse to accept it:

Matthew 7:6 Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you.

and here:

Galatians 1:9 If any one preach to you a gospel besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.

Redefining words and reinterpreting clear written sentences to mean something the original author never intended qualifies as preaching another gospel, by the way. For example, if anyone were to look at a verse originally written in a language with a single word for any and all forms of "rock", then redefine one instance of the word "rock" in that sentence to derive a meaning that better suits them, they would without any doubt be preaching another gospel. Likewise with ignoring the clear teaching of Scripture with regard to the heresy of Core, the sin of contraception, and a great many other things intrinsic to Protestantism.

Therefore, once they've been told and it's obvious that they've hardened their heart against the Holy Spirit, anathema.

Have a nice day

64 posted on 08/05/2012 10:56:57 AM PDT by Rashputin (Only Newt can defeat both the Fascist democrats and the Vichy GOP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

I quickly read through that entire diatribe and did not see even one sentence defending your position or acknowledging the scriptures I provided. It was all just a bundle of assertions with no real usefulness.


65 posted on 08/05/2012 11:00:35 AM PDT by RaisingCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: xzins
"Not understanding the need doesn’t make it go away, NL."

I appreciate the personal need, but there is no ecclesial need. Catholics accept both Scripture and the Sacred Tradition as co-equal sources of Revealed Truth. It is from this Deposit of faith that our doctrines and dogmas are derived.

I also appreciate the different perspectives we have with respect to the role of Scripture in our beliefs. What seems to be so very hard for all to accept is that, regardless of denomination, with few exceptions those who frequent the Religion Forum are people of significant faith. We are all called to God and Faith is the human response to that call.

Faith is, first and foremost, an act of the will. In cooperation with Grace, we must choose to believe. What you may call your "Born Again" experience we Catholics call a conversion. For us it is not just a one and done experience, it the beginning of a process we call conversion. For most it is a life long experience filled with many subsequent highs and a few lows. Faith is the belief in things not known and not knowable and the acceptance of things not understood or even understandable. Understanding is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit and as St. Paul reminds us not all will receive this gift or receive it in equal measures. Where we lack this understanding we, in faith look to our Church and its Traditions, Magisterium, and the collective body of knowledge and opinions of those who came before us. Rather than bicker over the errors we perceive in each other, lets us rejoice in the Faith we share.

Thank you for your service. Peace be with you

66 posted on 08/05/2012 11:15:36 AM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: RaisingCain
I love folks who "scan" through what something to see if what they want to be there is there and then just derive whatever what want from what they read. Those folks handle all Scripture exactly the same way. They scan through it and when they don't find what they want they start revising, reinterpreting, and stringing random verses together in order to get back to their preconception and agenda.

I bet folks like that make fine priests for themselves, particularly when they can't even understand and accept that Christ is God Almighty and works totally outside of and apart from time.

Our sacrifice is ongoing because He is alive and interceding for us. Christ IS the sacrifice and therefore the sacrifice is ongoing, period. This moment, every moment, an everlasting sacrifice we partake of through the Eucharist. Of course, some people may believe that Christ is no longer alive, or isn't in heaven, or isn't constantly interceding for us, isn't God Almighty, or even that Christ lied when He said "This is my body". But, hey, such folks are by definition not Christian since they deny the diety of Christ.

67 posted on 08/05/2012 11:20:00 AM PDT by Rashputin (Only Newt can defeat both the Fascist democrats and the Vichy GOP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

“The Church, with its teaching authority mandate, had a duty to ensure that all vernacular translations were accurate and were published without the heretical margin notes that were supporting many heretical movements of the day.”

Sorry, but this simply is not true. The first translation of the NT made by Tyndale was very accurate, and had no notes. The picture I posted was a photocopy of an original.

The prohibitions were against commoners reading vernacular translations. A wealthy person could get Wycliffe’s translation approved, but the same pages in the hand of a commoner was unacceptable.

The argument the Catholic Church made was that commoners couldn’t understand the subtlety of scripture, and thus needed the priest to tell them what it meant. It was a matter of policy.

“Compounding this was the very real situation where there were no written languages for the many, many languages and dialects spoken across Europe and no one literate in them to benefit from a vernacular language had there been a suitable vernacular Bible available.”

Odd. That didn’t stop Luther or Tyndale. They made it happen because they WANTED to, and they had a HUGE market.


68 posted on 08/05/2012 12:06:19 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberalism: "Ex faslo quodlibet" - from falseness, anything follows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

“I love folks who “scan” through what something to see if what they want to be there is there and then just derive whatever what want from what they read. “


Good thing the word “scan” didn’t appear in my post, which must mean that you “scanned” my post as opposed to quickly reading it.

“I bet folks like that make fine priests for themselves, particularly when they can’t even understand and accept that Christ is God Almighty and works totally outside of and apart from time.”


So your response to the concept of Christ being God almighty who works totally outside of and apart from time is to claim that there is a special class of Priests in our time, which normal Christians are not a member of unless they are approved by Romanism?

The scripture makes no special distinction. We are all referred to as “lively stones” and a “holy priesthood” as a result of our being a part of Christ’s body. Are Priests a part of God’s body and we are not?

Rev 1:5-6 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, (6) And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

It does not say “will make us” or “has made us in a different dimension of time” Kings and Priests, it says “hath made us” just as surely as he hath “washed us from our sins in his own blood.”

Gal_2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Christ lives in us. The righteousness we have by GRACE through FAITH has made us worthy to be a part of His body. And is the body of Christ not Holy?

Rom 8:7-17 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. (8) So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. (9) But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. (10) And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. (11) But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. (12) Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. (13) For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. (14) For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. (15) For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. (16) The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: (17) And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

We are children of God. Heirs to God that we may be Kings and Priests in His sight. We need ask of no one to mediate between us and God. We are a Holy Priesthood, and Christ is our High Priest, whom we can go to directly without any fear. We can walk into the Holy of Holies, not because of our own worthiness, but because of the worthiness of Christ who has won us to Him.

This is the same argument Peter makes in the other scripture I quoted, calling us “lively stones” (just as he is called a Rock) in the building of which Christ is the Chief Cornerstone, a “royal priesthood” unto God.

“Our sacrifice is ongoing because He is alive and interceding for us. Christ IS the sacrifice and therefore the sacrifice is ongoing, period. This moment, every moment, an everlasting sacrifice we partake of through the Eucharist. Of course, some people may believe that Christ is no longer alive, or isn’t in heaven, or isn’t constantly interceding for us, isn’t God Almighty, or even that Christ lied when He said “This is my body”. But, hey, such folks are by definition not Christian since they deny the diety of Christ.”


The scripture does not say that the Eucharist is the everlasting ongoing “final” sacrifice that we relive every Sunday in a Roman Church in order to attain salvation. It says this:

Luk_22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

Do it in remembrance of me. There is no scripture evidence that Christ is sacrificed every time a Roman Priest consecrates a wafer and some wine, or even that it is for anything more than a “remembrance” of the one and only sacrifice Christ gave on that cross.

Heb 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

FOR THIS HE DID ONCE!


69 posted on 08/05/2012 12:10:39 PM PDT by RaisingCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: RaisingCain

What a sophpmoric totally distorted diatribe clearly penned by someone without the ability to do anything other than stare at their own naval and repeatedly chant their misunderstandings and refusals to accept Christ.


70 posted on 08/05/2012 12:24:11 PM PDT by Rashputin (Only Newt can defeat both the Fascist democrats and the Vichy GOP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

“Again and again you keep ignoring the pointedly and indisputably strong scriptural and traditional bases of the rebuttal to your arguments made by the Augustinian Club and then conclude that this is a “personal “ attack. No, it is not when you engage in theological arguments and then side step the rebuttal.”

I was calling this comment personal:

“If you are unable to appreciate the depth of these arguments just say so. Why not just admit that the explanations are well beyond your intellectual grasp.”

Frankly, the club you cite has its facts wrong. No, I do not read an e-bbok which doesn’t ever address my arguments. Nor do I wish to write from my personal knowledge an e-book in reply. I’ve spent hundreds of posts over the years discussing the Eucharist, Priests, the prohibition on vernacular translations, etc.

I refuse to take 8 hours to write out a point-by-point rejection of a cut & paste. If you have a specific objection to anything I wrote, please make it and I will respond.

” Against the flow of a 2000 year plus tradition of interpretation by some of the most illustrious scholars and early Church fathers, and converts to Catholicism like the brilliant minds of GK Chesterton and Cardinal St. Thomas Newman, you make sophomoric contrary claims and hold out your exegetical views as pre-eminent.”

My arguments are not sophomoric. I’m sorry your great minds and thinkers of incredible wisdom have been unable to show any reference to Christian Priests in the New Testament, nor explain away the book of Hebrews. With such brilliant minds, they ought to be able to show some reference to Purgatory, which, if true, would be a very powerful incentive to moral living. Yet there is none in the Old or New, and even the Apocrypha only has one slanting verse sort of indicating that maybe such a thing could exist.

Is the Apocrypha authoritative for doctrine? If not, the Paul says it isn’t scripture, but the Council of Trent refused to discuss the argument. It chose to leave it an open question, which in turn opens questions about its understanding of what is meant by scripture.


71 posted on 08/05/2012 12:24:20 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberalism: "Ex faslo quodlibet" - from falseness, anything follows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

“What a sophpmoric totally distorted diatribe clearly penned by someone without the ability to do anything other than stare at their own naval and repeatedly chant their misunderstandings and refusals to accept Christ.”


This coming from the guy who has not once even acknowledged the existence of these scriptures, and instead asserts over and over again that I am a heretic since I will not deny them as you do.

I’ll take Jesus Christ at His word without the Roman filter:

Joh 11:25-26 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: (26) And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?


72 posted on 08/05/2012 12:31:11 PM PDT by RaisingCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: RaisingCain
for anything other than the ignorant, juvenile, mind, this is straight forward.

Christ is God incarnate. The Scripture is the Word of God. The Word of God says we're to obey our prelates. People who deny that we should have prelates deny the Word of God. Christ is called The Word, ergo, those who deny the Word of God deny Christ.

Furthermore, those who deny Christ cannot participate in the Eucharist, and the Word of God says those who do not partake of the Eucharist have no life in them. Those with no life in them cannot rightly divide His Word and therefore are by definition preaching another gospel when they interpret Scripture to suit their own preconceptions. Those who preach another gospel are anathema. Answering the vain ramblings of swine would be going contrary to Scripture which says not to throw pearls before swine.

have a nice

73 posted on 08/05/2012 12:41:19 PM PDT by Rashputin (Only Newt can defeat both the Fascist democrats and the Vichy GOP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; NYer; Salvation

If only you had taken the time to carefully read my post from the Augustine Club (what you derogatorily term as “cut and paste”) you would have found the explanation to the Catholic belief in purgatory. Beside, the great minds of Augustine, Aquinas, Benedict XVI, and to say nothing of the illustrious pantheon of intellectuals who have studied Church history and doctrine and made deliberate conversions to Catholicism including a former Chief Rabbi of Rome, considered a pre-eminent intellectual of his time, and of course the likes of literary giants like GK Chesterton and now Cardinal (St.) Henry Newman have concluded on the primacy of Peter and the Catholic Church. The rest are all wild offshoots of the bark of the one True, Catholic, Holy, and Apostolic Church as scripture, tradition, and revelation support.

Part of your problem is the myopic view that infects all of Protestantism that scripture alone interpreted of course by the pastors of some 30,000 non-CATHOLIC Christian denominations including the nearby neighborhood four-square church and individuals like yourself who claim have cottoned onto the “definite” interpretation of sacred text.

But here’s the part of the excerpt from the Augustine Club post reproduced below that you apparently did not read and hence you keep repeating your queries.
_________________________________________________________________________

Why do Catholics believe in a place between Heaven and Hell called Purgatory? Where is Purgatory mentioned in the Bible?

The main body of Christians have always believed in the existence of a place between Heaven and Hell where souls go to be punished for lesser sins and to repay the debt of temporal punishment for sins which have been forgiven. Even after Moses was forgiven by God, he was still punished for his sin. (2 Kg. or 2 Sam. 12:13-14).

The primitive Church Fathers regarded the doctrine of Purgatory as one of the basic tenets of the Christian faith. St. Augustine, one of the greatest doctors of the Church, said the doctrine of Purgatory ``has been received from the Fathers and it is observed by the Universal Church.’’ True, the word ``Purgatory’’ does not appear in the Bible, but a place where lesser sins are purged away and the soul is saved ``yet so as by fire,’’ is mentioned. (1 Cor. 3:15).

Also, the Bible distinguishes between those who enter Heaven straightaway, calling them ``the church of the firstborn’’ (Heb. 12:23), and those who enter after having undergone a purgation, calling them ``the spirits of the just made perfect.’’ (Heb. 12:23). Christ Himself stated: ``Amen I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence till thou repay the last farthing.’’ (Matt. 5 :26). And: ``Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment.’’ (Matt. 12:36). These are obviously references to Purgatory.

Further, the Second Book of Machabees (which was dropped from the Scriptures by the Protestant Reformers) says: ``It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.’’ (2 Mach. 12:46).

Ancient Christian tomb inscriptions from the second and third centuries frequently contain an appeal for prayers for the dead. In fact, the custom of praying for the dead—which is meaningless if there is no Purgatory—was universal among Christians for the fifteen centuries preceding the Protestant Reformation.

Furthermore, ordinary justice calls for a place of purgation between Heaven and Hell. Take our own courts of justice, for example. For major crimes a person is executed or sentenced to life imprisonment (Hell); for minor crimes a person is sentenced to temporary imprisonment for punishment and rehabilitation (Purgatory); for no crime at all a person is rewarded with the blessing of free citizenship (Heaven). If a thief steals some money, then regrets his deed and asks the victim for forgiveness, it is quite just for the victim to forgive him yet still insist on restitution.

God, who is infinitely just, insists on holy restitution. This is made either in this life, by doing penance (Matt. 3:2; Luke 3:8, 13:3; Apoc. 3:2-3, 19), or in Purgatory .

Also, what Christian is there who, despite his faith in Christ and his sincere attempts to be Christlike, does not find sin and worldliness still in his heart? ``For in many things we all offend.’’ (James 3:2). Yet ``there shall not enter into it [the new Jerusalem, Heaven] anything defiled.’’ (Apoc. or Rev. 21:27).

In Purgatory the soul is mercifully purified of all stain; there God carries out the work of spiritual purification which most Christians neglected and resisted on earth. It is important to remember that Catholics do not believe that Christ simply covers over their sinful souls, like covering a manure heap with a blanket of snow (Martin Luther’s description of God’s forgiveness).

Rather, Christ insists that we be truly holy and sinless to the core of our souls. ``Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.’’ (Matt. 5:48). This growth in sinlessness—in Christian virtue and holiness—is of course the work of an entire lifetime (and is possible only through the grace of God). With many this cleansing is completed only in Purgatory. If there is no Purgatory, but only Heaven for the perfect and Hell for the imperfect, then the vast majority of us are hoping in vain for life eternal in Heaven.


74 posted on 08/05/2012 12:51:59 PM PDT by Steelfish (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

“Christ is God incarnate.”


Duh

“The Scripture is the Word of God.”


I’ll add Roman tradition is not the word of God.

“The Word of God says we’re to obey our prelates.”


Can you cite the scripture where it says we are to obey the Pope, who is about 2,000 years removed from Peter and utterly contradicts the Bible?

“Furthermore, those who deny Christ cannot participate in the Eucharist, and the Word of God says those who do not partake of the Eucharist have no life in them. “


You are putting works ahead of salvation. An act that is to be done “as a remembrance of Me” cannot possibly be a spiritual act that determines your salvation. Salvation is a spiritual act, achieved by grace through faith alone, not through any activity of your own. That is why Cornelius and his family were filled with the Holy Spirit the moment they believed in Christ even before they were baptized, gone through confession with a “priest”, and participated in Roman traditions which, at that time, did not even exist.


75 posted on 08/05/2012 1:09:45 PM PDT by RaisingCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

“but a place where lesser sins are purged away and the soul is saved ``yet so as by fire,’’ is mentioned. (1 Cor. 3:15).”

Nope. Here is what 1 Cor 3 actually SAYS:

9 In this work, we work with God, and that means that you are a field under God’s cultivation, or, if you like, a house being built to his plan.

10-15 I, like an architect who knows his job, by the grace God has given me, lay the foundation; someone else builds upon it. I only say this, let the builder be careful how he builds! The foundation is laid already, and no one can lay another, for it is Jesus Christ himself. But any man who builds on the foundation using as his material gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay or stubble, must know that each man’s work will one day be shown for what it is. The day will show it plainly enough, for the day will arise in a blaze of fire, and that fire will prove the nature of each man’s work. If the work that the man has built upon the foundation will stand this test, he will be rewarded. But if a man’s work be destroyed under the test, he loses it all. He personally will be safe, though rather like a man rescued from a fire.

Note Paul is discussing MINISTRY - building up Christians. Those who do well, will receive honor from God. Those who do not will still go to heaven, but they will not receive the reward a more diligent man receives.

It has nothing to do with paying a penalty for sin. That was paid in full by Jesus Christ:

“3-5 Thank God, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, that in his great mercy we men have been born again into a life full of hope, through Christ’s rising again from the dead! You can now hope for a perfect inheritance beyond the reach of change and decay, “reserved” in Heaven for you. And in the meantime you are guarded by the power of God operating through your faith, till you enter fully into the salvation which is all ready for the denouement of the last day.” - Peter

Your extract says “ those who enter after having undergone a purgation, calling them ``the spirits of the just made perfect.’’ (Heb. 12:23).”

Actually, Heb 12 says “You have drawn near to God, the judge of all, to the souls of good men made perfect, and to Jesus, mediator of a new agreement, to the cleansing of blood which tells a better story than the age-old sacrifice of Abel.”

Remember, 2 chapters earlier he writes, “11-16 Every human priest stands day by day performing his religious duties and offering time after time the same sacrifices—which can never actually remove sins. But this man, after offering one sacrifice for sins for ever, took his seat at God’s right hand, from that time offering no more sacrifice, but waiting until “his enemies be made his footstool”. For by virtue of that one offering he has perfected for all time every one whom he makes holy. The Holy Spirit himself endorses this truth for us, when he says, first: ‘This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them’.

17 And then, he adds, ‘Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more’.

18 Where God grants remission of sin there can be no question of making further atonement.”

Let me repeat for emphasis:

“For by virtue of that one offering he has perfected for all time every one whom he makes holy...And then, he adds, ‘Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more’. Where God grants remission of sin there can be no question of making further atonement.”

God grants remission of sins based on the single sacrifice of Christ, and He promises ‘Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more’.

Your extract claims “Furthermore, ordinary justice calls for a place of purgation between Heaven and Hell.”

But the gift of God in Jesus Christ is NOT ordinary justice! There is NOTHING ordinary about the Gospel!

“So by virtue of the blood of Jesus, you and I, my brothers, may now have courage to enter the holy of holies by way of the one who died and is yet alive, who has made for us a holy means of entry by himself passing through the curtain, that is, his own human nature. Further, since we have a great High Priest set over the household of God, let us draw near with true hearts and fullest confidence, knowing that our inmost souls have been purified by the sprinkling of his blood just as our bodies are cleansed by the washing of clean water. In this confidence let us hold on to the hope that we profess without the slightest hesitation—for he is utterly dependable—and let us think of one another and how we can encourage each other to love and do good deeds.”

I could go on, but why? I’m just quoting the word of God, and what is that compared to “the great minds of Augustine, Aquinas, Benedict XVI, and to say nothing of the illustrious pantheon of intellectuals who have studied Church history and doctrine and made deliberate conversions to Catholicism including a former Chief Rabbi of Rome, considered a pre-eminent intellectual of his time, and of course the likes of literary giants like GK Chesterton and now Cardinal (St.) Henry Newman”...


76 posted on 08/05/2012 1:10:50 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberalism: "Ex faslo quodlibet" - from falseness, anything follows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Conveniently you say you are “quoting” the word of God when indeed you are making an interpretation that is at odds with the early Church fathers who were very well versed in the very texts you quote. The whole idea of the primacy of St. Peter and the Church which this thread is all about is that we don’t end up with a Tower of Babel set of interpretations where each one is a “Church” unto himself/herself. Just ask the Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Baptists, Scottish Reformed Church, Wesleyites, Calvinists and the list goes on endlessly not to mention the televangelists, the Rev. Wrights, Rev. Sharptons, where each denomination not unlike yourself claim to make authoritative interpretation of Sacred Scripture.


77 posted on 08/05/2012 1:29:58 PM PDT by Steelfish (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: RaisingCain
From the mouth of Christ Himself,
Luke 22:19 Do this in remembrance of me.

The Greek word for "remembrance," "anamnesis," refers to a memorial SACRIFICE. Therefore we once again see how those who interpret Scripture for themselves to suit their personal preconceptions and agenda are obviously incapable of understanding His Word because they have no life in them. They can't possibly correctly interpret His Word until they abandon the worship of their own, Most High and Holy Self, stop insisting that their favorite falsehood is the truth, take up their cross and follow Christ.

It's always interesting to think about what spirit people who interpret Scripture for themselves must really be listening to when they pretend to know what they're saying as they play their Lego Block games with Scripture but end up clearly denying Christ by denying His Word.

have a nice day

78 posted on 08/05/2012 1:35:57 PM PDT by Rashputin (Only Newt can defeat both the Fascist democrats and the Vichy GOP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

“The Greek word for “remembrance,” “anamnesis,” refers to a memorial SACRIFICE. Therefore we once again see how those who interpret Scripture for themselves to suit their personal preconceptions and agenda are obviously incapable of understanding His Word because they have no life in them. They can’t possibly correctly interpret His Word until they abandon the worship of their own, Most High and Holy Self, stop insisting that their favorite falsehood is the truth, take up their cross and follow Christ.”


I checked several Greek Lexicons just now, and none of them say that anamnesis means “sacrifice.” It means:

Definition
a remembering, recollection

“means of remembering, remembrance, reminder” (Friberg)
“reminder, remembrance” (Barclay-Newman)
“reminder” (Louw-Nida)
“a remembering, recollection” (Thayer)
“calling to mind, reminiscence, remembrance” (Lust-Eynikel-Hauspie)
“reminder; remembrance, memory” (Gingrich)

It’s also the name of a Socratic theory that the soul is eternal and is only in the process of “relearning” everything it had once forgotten, which had been forgotten in the shock of child birth.

I don’t think Socrates was Catholic and was referring to the Eucharist.

Another word, Anamimnesko, a verb form, is also translated for “remembering.” It is used when Peter remembered Christ’s words that he would deny Christ three times.

I don’t think Peter was doing a memorial sacrifice just then.

Now, could the word mean “Remembering...” the sacrifice of Christ? Yup, that’s exactly what it means. But it does not contain that meaning in and of itself.

But I actually have access to a far superior Eucharist than you could ever possess. Want to know how I got it?

Simple:

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.

I simply believe in Him, and I never hunger. I believe in Him, and I never again shall thirst.

The Papists, as usual, turn everything that is spiritual into something utterly fleshy.


79 posted on 08/05/2012 2:07:19 PM PDT by RaisingCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; Steelfish
Mr Rogers, you reference 1 Cor 3:15: He personally will be safe, though rather like a man rescued from a fire.

The phrase for "suffer loss" in the Greek is "zemiothesetai." The root word is "zemioo" which also refers to punishment. The construction “zemiothesetai” is used in Ex. 21:22 and Prov. 19:19 which refers to punishment (from the Hebrew “anash” meaning “punish” or “penalty”). Hence, this verse proves that there is an expiation of temporal punishment after our death, but the person is still saved. This cannot mean heaven (there is no punishment in heaven) and this cannot mean hell (the possibility of expiation no longer exists and the person is not saved).

Further, Paul writes “he himself will be saved, "but only" (or “yet so”) as through fire.” “He will be saved” in the Greek is “sothesetai” (which means eternal salvation). The phrase "but only" (or “yet so”) in the Greek is "houtos" which means "in the same manner." This means that man is both eternally rewarded and eternally saved in the same manner by fire.

80 posted on 08/05/2012 2:12:43 PM PDT by NYer (Without justice, what else is the State but a great band of robbers? - St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: RaisingCain

**Final and ongoing sacrifice. Isn’t that an inherent contradiction?**

The Mass and the Eucharisit are a MEMORIAL of the Last Supper.

Does your Bible have the words “Do this in memory of me.”??

It is not a re-sacrifice, it is a memorial of that sacrifice.

Again — Christ said, “Do this in memory of me.”


81 posted on 08/05/2012 2:31:19 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

“**Final and ongoing sacrifice. Isn’t that an inherent contradiction?**

The Mass and the Eucharisit are a MEMORIAL of the Last Supper.

Does your Bible have the words “Do this in memory of me.”??

It is not a re-sacrifice, it is a memorial of that sacrifice.

Again — Christ said, “Do this in memory of me.””


The Roman Church disagrees:

As a sacrifice
“the holy sacrifice of the Eucharist,” (CCC, 1055) and “the Eucharist is also a sacrifice,” (CCC, 1365).
As a divine sacrifice
“For it is in the liturgy, especially in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, that “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” (CCC, 1068).
As a representation of the sacrifice of Christ
“The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross,” (CCC, 1366).
Is ‘one single sacrifice’ with Christ’s sacrifice
“The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice,” (CCC, 1367).
It is the same sacrifice of Christ
“And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner,” (CCC, 1367).
It is propitiatory (removes the wrath of God)
“...this sacrifice is truly propitiatory,” (CCC, 1367).
To all who deny its propitiatory nature Trent pronounces anathema
“If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.” (Trent: On the Sacrifice of the Mass: Canon 3);
It is called the sacrifice of Christ which is offered via the priest’s hands
“The sacrifice of Christ the only Mediator, which in the Eucharist is offered through the priests’ hands,” (CCC, 1369).
It is capable of making reparation of sins
“As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead,” (CCC, 1414).
It is to be considered a true and proper sacrifice
“The Church intends the Mass to be regarded as a ‘true and proper sacrifice’”, (The Catholic Encyclopedia, topic: “Sacrifice of the Mass”).

Of course, it most certainly IS something to be done “in remembrance of Me” and isn’t actually involved in forgiveness of sins or salvation and most certainly is not an actual sacrifice. It’s just that the Catholics do not hold the same position as what the scripture says.


82 posted on 08/05/2012 2:35:55 PM PDT by RaisingCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

Great post.


83 posted on 08/05/2012 2:36:00 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
"The prohibitions were against commoners reading vernacular translations."

To find the truth we must examine positive and negative information. The purpose of Tyndale's work was not to bring the Bible to the commoners, it was to bring his doctrines to the people. There were already numerous English translations available and the number of persons able to read an English dialect was incredibly small. Those who were able to read English and not Latin were nonexistent.

When Tyndale produced his first translation in 1525 there were five major dialect divisions within England - Northern, West Midlands, East Midlands (a region which extended down to include London), Southern and Kentish - and even within these demarcations, there was a huge variety of different spellings. For example, the word church could be spelled in 30 different ways, people in 22, receive in 45, she in 60 and though in over 500 variations. The “-ing” participle (e.g. running) was said as “-and” in the north, “-end” in the East Midlands, and “-ind” in the West Midlands (e.g. runnand, runnend, runnind). The "-eth" and "-th" verb endings used in the south of the country (e.g. goeth) appear as "-es" and "-s" in the Northern and most of the north Midland area (e.g. goes), a version which was ultimately to become the standard. (above based upon information from wikipedia)

I don't expect you to always reach the right conclusions, but you have absolutely no chance of doing it when you ignore over half of the available information.

Peace be with you.

84 posted on 08/05/2012 2:39:30 PM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Also the unbloody MEMORIAL of the Sacrifice of the Cross. I forgot that part.


85 posted on 08/05/2012 2:41:22 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: RaisingCain

Nothing on your homepage. I was wondering what denomination you were and why you are trying to tell me a Catholic what to believe??

Catholics do believe all the quotes from the Catechism and the Scripture too.

Why do you say that Catholics don’t believe Scripture?

I could say the same — many others of various denominations do not believe the Gospels, even though the contain the words of Christ. Instead they believe St. Paul. (Not that St. Paul was lying — but I’ll take Christ’s words, “I am the Bread of Life.” any day!


86 posted on 08/05/2012 2:45:54 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

“Nothing on your homepage. I was wondering what denomination you were and why you are trying to tell me a Catholic what to believe??”


You said it was for a Memorial. I agreed. But the Catholic Church believes it is an actual sacrifice, somehow the same sacrifice as the one Jesus Christ did, which at the same time protects us from the wrath of God.

The scripture only uses one greek word which means “Remembrance,” or to recollect. It doesn’t mention any of the other stuff.


87 posted on 08/05/2012 3:04:20 PM PDT by RaisingCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

“The purpose of Tyndale’s work was not to bring the Bible to the commoners, it was to bring his doctrines to the people. There were already numerous English translations available and the number of persons able to read an English dialect was incredibly small.”

Incorrect.

First, as I demonstrated with the earlier picture, Tyndale’s first full translation of the NT was published with NO comments. None. Nada. Zilch.

It was simply a translation, and a very good one at that. Thomas More tried to attack it as a translation and made a fool of himself. Repent did, indeed, mean repent and not “do penance”. Elder meant elder, not bishop. Etc.

There were not numerous English translations available. There was no complete New Testament or Bible in any form of English prior to Wycliffe, nor any other available until Tyndale.

“Although unauthorized, the work was popular. Wycliffite Bible texts are the most common manuscript literature in Middle English. Over 250 manuscripts of the Wycliffite Bible survive...

...Even twenty years after Wycliffe’s death, at the Oxford Convocation of 1408, it was solemnly voted that no new translation of the Bible should be made without prior approval. However, as the text translated in the various versions of the Wycliffe Bible was the Latin Vulgate, and as it contained no heterodox readings, there was in practice no way by which the ecclesiastical authorities could distinguish the banned version; and consequently many Catholic commentators of the 15th and 16th centuries (such as Thomas More) took these manuscript English bibles to represent an anonymous earlier orthodox translation. Consequently manuscripts of the Wycliffe Bible, which when inscribed with a date always purport to precede 1409, the date of the ban, circulated freely and were widely used by clergy and laity.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wycliffe_Bible

I have asked before for someone to show a translation of the entire New Testament prior to Wycliffe, or a competing translation co-existing with it. To date, no one has taken up the challenge.

“Parts of the Bible had, of course, been translated into English before Wycliffe’s time—both
in the Old English period and, more recently, in Middle English. But these partial translations
had been designed for devotional or liturgical use or for narrative interest. In the Old English
period we have the translation of the Psalter by Aldhelm of Sherborne as early as the eighth
century, while from the tenth century we have the Wessex Gospels and the Heptateuch
(Genesis-Judges) of Aelfric of Eynsham. Alfred the Great’s law-code was introduced by an
English version of the Decalogue and other parts of Exodus 20-23. From the early fourteenth
century we have Middle English translations of the Psalter, the best known of which is that
by Richard Rolle, the hermit of Hampole (near Doncaster), which was accompanied by a
verse-by-verse commentary; it was evidently a popular work, being copied in other dialects
than Rolle’s own. Later in the same century comes a version of the New Testament epistles
made apparently for members of religious houses.
But before the time of Wycliffe no one seems to have thought of providing ordinary layfolk
with a vernacular version of the whole Bible. The provision of such a version, however, was
imperative if ordinary layfolk were directly responsible to God as Wycliffe taught, for
knowing and obeying his law.”

http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_098_4_Bruce.pdf

The Catholic Encyclopedia agrees with my statement:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm

Further, if there was no one who needed an English translation, nor anyone who could read one, then Tyndale would obviously have had no market, nor could Wycliffe’s followers before him. Yet Wycliffe’s followers DID market and give away handwritten copies, often at risk of death. And Tyndale’s translation DID sell, and sell well.

It is an amazing thing - a translation that no one wanted and that no one could read sold as fast as it could be printed.

Repeat - and the Catholic Encyclopedia agrees with me - there were no translations of the Bible into vernacular English (Old, Middle or any other variant) prior to Wycliffe. And Tyndale’s translation was both accurate (I believe it is available online if you wish to check it) and popular. It was vastly better than the later Douai-Reims, which the Catholic Encyclopedia notes:

“The religious adherence to the Latin text is the reason of the less elegant and idiomatic words and phrases found in the translation. The original Douai Version has undergone so many revisions that “scarcely any verse remains as it was originally published”. Dr. Challoner probably merits the credit of being the principal reviser of the Douai Version (1749-50)...”

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm

The current DR owes most of its text to the KJV, with revisions made to make it accord with Catholic theology.


88 posted on 08/05/2012 3:09:23 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberalism: "Ex faslo quodlibet" - from falseness, anything follows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: NYer

“He shall suffer loss (zhmiwthsetai).
First future passive indicative of zhmiw, old verb from zhmia (damage, loss), to suffer loss. In Matthew 16:26; Mark 8:36; Luke 9:25 the loss is stated to be the man’s soul (psuxhn) or eternal life. But here there is no such total loss as that. The man’s work (ergon) is burned up (sermons, lectures, books, teaching, all dry as dust).

But he himself shall be saved (autov de swthsetai).
Eternal salvation, but not by purgatory. His work is burned up completely and hopelessly, but he himself escapes destruction because he is really a saved man a real believer in Christ.”

http://www.studylight.org/com/rwp/view.cgi?book=1co&chapter=003&verse=015

Paul was obviously using an analogy - that the church is a building, and ministers were working on the building with either wood or stone. On Judgement Day, the building would be tested by fire to show what each man had done - did he build with stone, that would survive the fire, or wood, which would not?

Paul states this explicitely:

” each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done.”

Paul then concludes his analogy by writing, “ If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.”

If your house catches on fire, you will have nothing - but you will live. If someone builds the church poorly, his work will not last and he will enter heaven with empty hands - as someone whose house has burnt down is without anything.

This is not a complex verse to understand. It is very simple, and it does NOT, in any way, suggest a place where men are tormented to pay the temporal punishment of their sins. That is not the Gospel, but the anti-Gospel. There is nothing good about the news you have to work your way to heaven, and pay the judgment of your sins!


89 posted on 08/05/2012 3:19:15 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberalism: "Ex faslo quodlibet" - from falseness, anything follows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Thanks.

People who, in effect, call Christ a liar by denying that Christ is really present in the Eucharist bread and wine are blind, and being blind, latch onto whatever they think best rationalizes their inability to see. Christ Himself said He is really present in the Eucharist, therefore the remembrance of Christ shares in the sacrifice of Christ on the cross exactly the same way people shared the sacrificial meal of any other sacrifice prior to the Crucifixion.

I honestly don't understand how people who claim to be Christian cannot grasp that having us share in the in the sacrifice that took place on the cross is a trivial thing for Christ to accomplish. It has to be one of the blind spots Satan works very hard to foster and works very hard to keep folks getting over.

It's like people bending over backwards to ignore the fact that God has been dealing with His people in the same, consistent, way throughout the Bible. It's so obvious, in fact, that people can't miss it unless they've accepted a powerful delusion. God always raises up a leader for His people, and that leader always establishes a priesthood to keep His sheep from straying. Christ as our leader did the same thing, established a priesthood to guide and protect His sheep so they don't stray from the body of Christ, His Church. Yet, the majority of folks prefer Core to Christ, and in doing so deny Christ by denying His Word. They so much prefer Core, in fact, that they'll deny clear, simple, Scripture that states, ". . . and on this Rock I will build my Church", or "This is my body".

Obviously, it's very easy for folks in this country to get trapped into Self Worship and find whatever they want to find in Scripture without ever seeing what's really there. When the majority of people are deluded into believing Christ would be the father of anarchy, it's no wonder the majority of people commit the same sin Eve did. Who but Self Worshipers who see themself as god can teach that contraception is a sin in 1965 and teach that it's no big deal twenty years later, then claim that they've always based their belief on what the Holy Spirit shows them is in Scripture?

I am so thankful for the Grace that led me to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church after so long in the wildness of Protestantism.

Regards

90 posted on 08/05/2012 4:39:04 PM PDT by Rashputin (Only Newt can defeat both the Fascist democrats and the Vichy GOP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

I appreciate the kind note.

I know it seems sometimes that scripture is a personal need for us separated brethren, but it truly is ecclesial. It is what we believe, preserved in our Articles of Religion, and taught to all of our people.

As you have noticed, I have accepted Peter’s role in leading at the foundation of the church. I simply want to hear from the Apostles themselves on any further role extending beyond Peter to those who would have succeeded him.

Peter himself found a piece of scripture saying the position of Judas had to be filled by another. From that, the Apostles drew lots to bring Mathias into their fellowship.

It’s always fascinating to find these treasures in scripture. And, it’s always fulfilling to see God having filled in the blanks long before we even asked the questions.

Thank you, NL, for your remembrance of our service members. They are in a terrible bind now with a government that is not trying to win, but that sees no problem with sacrificing them for political expediency. Please pray for them and for their victory in every engagement.


91 posted on 08/05/2012 7:29:05 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

I appreciate the kind note.

I know it seems sometimes that scripture is a personal need for us separated brethren, but it truly is ecclesial. It is what we believe, preserved in our Articles of Religion, and taught to all of our people.

As you have noticed, I have accepted Peter’s role in leading at the foundation of the church. I simply want to hear from the Apostles themselves on any further role extending beyond Peter to those who would have succeeded him.

Peter himself found a piece of scripture saying the position of Judas had to be filled by another. From that, the Apostles drew lots to bring Mathias into their fellowship.

It’s always fascinating to find these treasures in scripture. And, it’s always fulfilling to see God having filled in the blanks long before we even asked the questions.

Thank you, NL, for the background info on your Church, and also for your remembrance of our service members. Our troops are in a terrible bind now with a government that is not trying to win, but that sees no problem with sacrificing them for political expediency. Please pray for them and for their victory in every engagement.


92 posted on 08/05/2012 7:30:14 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Catholic radio replays the Mother Angelica shows. Don’t you love her old show? Last week she asked...”Why did Our Lord choose
Peter?”

Mother Angelica gave several reasons. Right now, I remember two.

Peter didn’t care what others thought of him and Peter
was obedient.

Seeing Christ walking on the water, Peter jumped out of
the boat, he was the only one to go toward Christ~!

Peter was a professional fisherman and after fishing all day with no luck, Peter still cast his net back in the water at Our Lord’s instruction.


93 posted on 08/05/2012 8:59:44 PM PDT by stpio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

It constantly comes up, wretched “Faith Alone”, it messes up Protestants in every area of the faith.

John Salza is a great apologist. You should read him. He
was asked about Purgatory. Here’s his reply about the same verses. Fits, Paul is explaining Purgatory.

blessings,

- - -

Punished after death and still saved (1 Cor. 3:15)

J. Salza: If you wish to get your “information directly from the Bible,” then look to 1 Cor. 3:12-17. In these passages, Paul is talking about how God judges our works after death by using a string of metaphors (we are God’s building; works are good and bad materials, etc.). Paul says that if a person builds with good materials, he will receive a reward (verse 14). If he builds with a mixture of good and bad materials, his work is burned up, but he is still saved (verse 15). If he only builds with bad materials, he has destroyed the temple, and God will destroy him (verse 17).

This passage demonstrates several things. First, it demonstrates that our works serve as a basis for determining our salvation. This is contrary to the erroneous Protestant belief that, once we accept Jesus by faith alone, we are saved. Protestants have no good explanation for why Paul is teaching the Corinthians that our works bear upon our salvation. Second, the verse demonstrates that, if a person does both good and bad works, his bad works are punished, but he is still saved. The Greek phrase for “suffer loss” (zemiothesetai) means “to be punished.” This means the man undergoes an expiation of temporal punishment for his bad works (sins) but is still saved. The phrase “but only” or “yet so” (in Greek, houtos) means “in the same manner.” This means that the man must pass through the fire in the same way that his bad works passed through the fire, in order to expiate himself of the things that led him to produce the bad works in the first place.

This demonstrates that there is punishment after death, followed by salvation. The Church calls this purification “Purgatory.” If accepting Jesus as Savior by faith alone during one’s life were true, there would be no punishment after death for those who are saved. Your sins would already be washed away. This passage proves that there is punishment and forgiveness after death, followed by salvation. This biblical teaching of a post-death punishment by fire which is followed by salvation is inimical to Protestant theology.

There is nothing new under the sun, other than an ongoing splintering of Protestant Christianity. If you study the early Church Fathers and medievals, you will see that they were all Catholic. Don’t imbibe this Protestant mentality of “Jesus, the Bible and me.” God gave us His Holy Catholic Church, built upon the rock of St. Peter, to whom Christ gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and the authority to bind and loose in heaven what he binds and looses on earth.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/


94 posted on 08/05/2012 9:20:24 PM PDT by stpio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: stpio

“John Salza is a great apologist. “

Not really. He is incapable of reading a short, simple paragraph without distorting it beyond recognition.

Here is what Paul wrote:

“5-8 After all, who is Paul? Who is Apollos? No more than servants through whom you came to believe as the Lord gave each man his opportunity. I may have done the planting and Apollos the watering, but it was God who made the seed grow! The planter and the waterer are nothing compared with him who gives life to the seed. Planter and waterer are alike insignificant, though each shall be rewarded according to his particular work.

9 In this work, we work with God, and that means that you are a field under God’s cultivation, or, if you like, a house being built to his plan.

10-15 I, like an architect who knows his job, by the grace God has given me, lay the foundation; someone else builds upon it. I only say this, let the builder be careful how he builds! The foundation is laid already, and no one can lay another, for it is Jesus Christ himself. But any man who builds on the foundation using as his material gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay or stubble, must know that each man’s work will one day be shown for what it is. The day will show it plainly enough, for the day will arise in a blaze of fire, and that fire will prove the nature of each man’s work. If the work that the man has built upon the foundation will stand this test, he will be rewarded. But if a man’s work be destroyed under the test, he loses it all. He personally will be safe, though rather like a man rescued from a fire.”

It doesn’t take a great thinker to turn that into:

“This passage demonstrates several things. First, it demonstrates that our works serve as a basis for determining our salvation. This is contrary to the erroneous Protestant belief that, once we accept Jesus by faith alone, we are saved. Protestants have no good explanation for why Paul is teaching the Corinthians that our works bear upon our salvation.”

It takes a dishonest man to twist it like that.

If anyone wants to know the truth, let them read what Paul wrote. Not what John Salza wrote. Those with eyes to see, WILL see.


95 posted on 08/05/2012 9:56:24 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberalism: "Ex faslo quodlibet" - from falseness, anything follows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

BTW, here is Tyndale’s translation of 1 Cor 3:

Ҧ And I could not speak unto you brethren as unto spiritual: but as unto carnal, even as it were unto babes in Christ. I gave you milk to drink and not meat. For ye then were not strong, no neither yet are strong. For ye are yet carnal. As long verily as there is among you envying, strife and dissension: are ye not carnal, and walk after the manner of men? As long as one saith: I hold of Paul, and another, I am of Apollo, are ye not carnal? What is Paul? what thing is apollo? but ministers by whom ye believed even as the Lord gave every man grace. I have planted: Apollo watered: but god gave increase. So then, neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth: but god which gave the increase.

¶ He that planteth, and he that watereth, are neither better than the other. Every man yet shall receive his reward according to his labour. We are goddis laborers: ye are goddis husbandry, ye are goddis building. According to the grace of god given unto me, as a wise builder have I laid the foundation, another hath built theron: but let every man take heed how he buildeth upon. For other foundation can no man lay, than that which is laid, which is Iesus Christ. If any man build on this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, timber, hay, or stubble: every man’s work shall appear. For the day shall declare it, and it shall be shewed in fire, and the fire shall try every man’s work what it is. If any man’s work that he hath built upon, bide, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he shall be safe himself: nevertheless yet as it were thorow fire.

¶ Are ye not ware that ye are the temple of god, and how that the spirit of god dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of god, him shall god destroy. For the temple of God is holy, which temple are ye. Let no man deceive himself. If any man seem wise among you, let him be a fool in this world, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written: he compasseth the wise in their craftiness. And again, God knoweth the thoughts of the wise that they be vain. Therefore let no man rejoice in men. For all things are yours, whether it be Paul, other Apollo, either Cephas: whether it be the world, either life, either death, whether they be present things or things to come: all are yours, and ye are Christe’s, and Christ is goddis.”

http://www.faithofgod.net/WTNT/index.html#books


96 posted on 08/05/2012 10:00:57 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberalism: "Ex faslo quodlibet" - from falseness, anything follows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Hi, I’ll make it simple...

1 Cor 3:15
If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.

If you “shall be saved” sounds like you are going to Heaven
but there is no suffering in Heaven, no purification, no
need of it since nothing unholy enters Heaven.

There is another place, a place of purgation, Purgatory.

Another problem, some Christians do not see or understand
even though our sins are forgiven when we repent and confess
them, we still must make reparation for our actions...by
our loving acts, our prayers, our crosses here while on earth. If we don’t, you do it over the veil in Purgatory because God is perfectly loving and perfectly just.

Seeee....

blessings,


97 posted on 08/05/2012 10:10:18 PM PDT by stpio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: stpio
Catholic radio replays the Mother Angelica shows. Don’t you love her old show?

I recall that particular episode when it aired on EWTN. She has the most remarkable gift of simplifying the complex. When it comes to the apostles, she brings them to life by reminding us of their humble origins and the daunting task entrusted to them. Have you read Raymond Arroyo's book, "Mother Angelica, the Remarkable Story of a Nun"?

98 posted on 08/06/2012 5:01:51 AM PDT by NYer (Without justice, what else is the State but a great band of robbers? - St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: NYer
When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek

Please provide a link to the facsimile of the Aramaic text of Matthew.

I won't hold my breath waiting ...

99 posted on 08/06/2012 8:22:35 AM PDT by dartuser ("If you are ... what you were ... then you're not.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: stpio

This is the second time a Roman has come in and invented what a greek word actually means. “Zemiothesetai” does not mean “to be punished” at any time.

According to the Greek Lexicon,

Definition

to affect with damage, do damage to
to sustain damage, to receive injury, suffer loss
Translated Words
KJV (6) - be cast away, 1; lose, 2; receive damage, 1; suffer loss, 2;
NAS (6) - forfeit, 1; forfeits, 2; suffer loss, 2; suffered the loss of, 1;

At no time is this word ever translated as “to be punished.”

As for the scripture in question, it does not teach that men go to purgatory to burn for their sins. It says that, despite their imperfections, they will be saved. Kind of like how a Catholic might be saved. Not because of Catholicism, but despite of it “as though by fire.” It does not say they will be punished in the hereafter, only that they will not have as many rewards in heaven as he could have had. The scripture is clear that it is not us who live, but Christ who lives in us. It is by His righteousness, and not our own, that we merit heaven. And it is by His sacrifice, not the Eucharist or any ritual you go through or any holy work you do, which makes you clean as snow.


100 posted on 08/06/2012 8:29:27 AM PDT by RaisingCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-122 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