Posted on 06/19/2016 1:22:54 PM PDT by ebb tide
Foreword by Michael J. Matt
It is becoming apparent to this writer that many people, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, are waking to the harsh reality of what Pope Francis is all about. The next step is to help these same good people understand the harsh reality of what the entire Modernist revolution has been about ever since the days of St. Pius X, when popes were still vigorously battling this great ‘synthesis of all heresies’.
The Modernist revolution ‘came out of the closet’, if you will, at the time of the Second Vatican Council, but nowhere was its agenda made more abundantly apparent than in the systematic destruction of the Roman Rite, which took place in the aftermath of Vatican II and with the full blessing of the Spirit of Vatican II.
Once it is understood why Modernists at the ‘heart and bosom’ of the Church attacked the Mass first—because it was the liturgical stronghold, if you will, in which Catholic doctrine had been protected for centuries, and in which even the Latin itself made experimentation and novelty nearly impossible, and which day after day reinforced Catholic ideas so repugnant to Modernist notions of ecumenism, dialogue, universal salvationism, and ultimately the false moral liberty (a mere extension of the Modernists’ crowning achievement of a false religious liberty) on which the rise of abortion, contraception and the destruction of Christian marriage were wholly dependent—then it is easy to understand what’s been going on in the Church for a long time. Quite simply, we are all the victims of a massive Modernist coup d’état, for which our poor, beleaguered pontiff is nothing more than the ultimate poster boy.
The ascendency of Pope Francis to the Chair of St. Peter has always been the endgame of the Modernists—to get one of their own at the very top. Francis did not emerge from a vacuum, and it is unfair to him to suggest otherwise. This has been a long time coming, but, in so many ways, the success of the entire Modernist revolution that he now represents was wholly dependent on the destruction of the Roman Rite, the so-called Tridentine Mass—both from the spiritual as well as the practical perspective.
You don’t like Latin? You prefer vernacular? You enjoy the priest facing the people so you can see his face? Of course, and this is because through no fault of your own, you have been brainwashed by Modernists, causing your understanding of what liturgy is supposed to be to become fatally flawed. You think that liturgy should be all about you, and how it makes you feel, and how you respond to it, rather than about God and the proper worship owed to the Creator. And when it fails to entertain or to make us "feel" something, it becomes irrelevant to us, just as it became irrelevant to millions of fallen-away Catholics since the introduction of the Novus Ordo.
How you and I “feel” about the Mass is really quite irrelevant. In true Luciferian fashion, the point and purpose of the Mass have been inverted. The Modernists knew what they were doing, and superficial abuses such as altar girls and use of the vernacular pale in severity when compared to what they were really all about—the end of the worthy sacrifice that since the beginning of history man knew he owed to God. Thus tables replaced altars, women and guitar strummers diverted attention away from priests, communion rails were razed to make room for ‘gathering spaces’, tabernacles--the holy of holies--were shoved off to the side if not removed from the church altogether, and celebrating the communal meal suplanted God offering God to God on the altar of sacrifice.
The following article penned by an adult convert to Catholicism, goes over some familiar ground where the liturgy is concerned, but if it is read prayerfully and humbly, I’m convinced it will help many formerly brainwashed Catholics to stir themselves to the reality of what’s really happened over the past fifty years and to, Deo Volente, resolve to take measures to reclaim what was viciously stolen from them a long time ago—their birthright, their identity, their liturgical patrimony, their religion, their future, the souls of their own children.
Please God, help us all to see and understand what we have lost, what they have done to your bride and how they have uncrowned You. MJM
In his homily message on January 18, 2016, Pope Francis sharply criticized traditional Catholics, calling them, among other things, Christians who have hearts closed to the surprises of the Holy Spirit and rebels who practice the sin of divination; insults which have already been widely discussed on the internet.
Wishing to lend credence to these accusations, the Pope used the day's scripture readings to illustrate his point, including a particular story about King Saul, which can be found in the book of 1 Kings chapter 15 (Douay Rheims version).
While Francis obviously misinterpreted the passage, the true interpretation, as explained very clearly within the scripture, contains an important message for all Catholics who wish to seek God's truth and God's will during a particularly confusing time in Church history. In my mind, the correct interpretation of the passage helps illustrate why the Traditional Latin Mass (according to the 1962 missal), relegated to the "extraordinary form" so many years ago by the Church hierarchy, is so important, and why it is necessary now perhaps more than ever that it be celebrated and made available on a regular basis to all Catholics.
King Saul, forerunner to Annibale Bugnini--Father of the New Mass? king saul 1In Chapter 15 of 1Kings, God commanded Saul through the prophet Samuel to rise up against the tribe Amalec and destroy both the people and all that belonged to them. He was clearly instructed to neither spare nor covet anything, but rather, to slay "both man and woman, child and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." Saul obeyed the Lord by attacking and overcoming Amalec, but he did not destroy everything as commanded. Rather, he kept the king alive, and gathered up the best of the flocks and herds, garments, and "all that was beautiful." Everything that was "vile and good for nothing", he destroyed.
To add to this rebellion, Saul then further insulted God by sacrificing some of these forbidden treasures to the Lord. When confronted by Samuel, Saul blamed the people, stating they wanted to "spare the best of the sheep and the herds" in order to sacrifice them to the Lord.
Note first of all, that as the scripture specifies that "some" of the spoils were sacrificed, the rest were obviously kept for the enjoyment and further enrichment of Saul. Secondly, the passage does not specify whether or not the people had knowledge regarding God's instructions to Saul, and yet Saul, proving himself to be a hireling rather than a shepherd, attempted to blame them for the incident. Last and most importantly, one must note that Saul offered an inferior religious act, clearly unacceptable to God in an attempt to excuse his disobedience to God's command. Thus the people participated in an act that was abominable to the Lord, quite probably in ignorance, out of faithful obedience to a leader who chose to ignore the sin for the purpose of his own worldly gain. Like the false shepherds who feed themselves instead of the flock (Eze 34:2), like the false shepherds who say "Blessed be the Lord, we are become rich," and spare not the flock (Zec 11:5).
As an adult convert to Catholicism, I was not familiar with the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM), and knew nothing about the change imposed upon the faithful with the advent of the Novus Ordo Mass (NOM). The first time my family and I attended the monthly TLM at our (fairly conservative) Novus Ordo parish, I didn't understand a word of Latin (although I very much enjoyed the Gregorian chant, as did my family).
Nonetheless, I was astounded upon reading the English translation of the liturgy. What a difference! How beautiful! This Mass was clearly about a humble, contrite people, all sinners, giving thanks to the God who created them and who loves them so much.
Having read the liturgy, it now seems most plausible that the NOM, so different in tone, has been instrumental in weakening the bond between God and the faithful. This seems logical, as the emphasis placed on the meaning of the Mass has shifted from the great sacrifice of the Lamb of God to a memorial of (the last supper) meal. I believe that this change in emphasis and tone has actually encouraged the faithful to become more dependent on the world, in direct contradiction to Christ's own will which He expressed so eloquently in the gospels, especially in the gospel of St. John, Chapter 17.
How could one even begin to praise the glories of the "Mass of all time?" It begins with Psalm 42, which reminds us of our need for God, and tells of His devotion and intimate care for His people: Although enemies surround us, even though we may face grave peril and persecution in this world, we need not be disturbed; the "light of truth" has brought us here, to the altar of God. And then from Psalm 120: "Our help comes from the Lord who made heaven and earth."
Throughout the Mass it is made abundantly clear that the sacrifice is Jesus Christ Himself, the "spotless host", the "holy sacrifice", the "Victim without blemish." How can we be but humbled by this reminder. We must recall we are unworthy sinners. When the priest asks God to cleanse his heart and lips, to purify him that he may be made worthy to announce the holy gospel, we are again in awe, being reminded of our distinct and undeserved privilege. For many ears have not been opened to receive the message of Christ's peace into their lives.
In addition, within the liturgy of the Mass, we are reminded of the communion of saints whose prayers and intercession help us stand strong in faith during this difficult life, as they once did as well, resisting sin and the desire for worldly pleasures which strengthened them to persevere in times of trial. Even trial that led to martyrdom. And after the sacrifice of the Mass, we are treated to the last gospel reading—the same each Sunday—the glorious treatise by St. John regarding the greatness of God and the wonders of His gift to mankind (Jn 1:1-14):"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...by Him all things were made...In Him was life and the life was the light of men...those who receive Him were given great power to become sons of God, those who believe in His name...And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us (as we all genuflect) and we saw His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."
In light of this beautiful, reverent liturgy, the question is simple: How will the faithful, who, by the words of Jesus all sleep while waiting for the return of the bridegroom, come to understand the great glory of God and His promise of eternal life which (at best) we comprehend only dimly, given that our day to day lives occur in this sinful world? We cannot comprehend the promise and stand firm in the faith unless, when we come before the altar of God for the holy sacrifice of the Mass, we are reminded of God's glory, God's sacrifice, our unworthiness, and God's love. This is our greatest strength, our greatest prayer, our greatest grace.
The change of tone in the NOM is indeed substantial. Consider the great miracle of transubstantiation as it occurs in the cannon of the TLM: The priest "humbly prays to the Father through Jesus", asking that He receive and bless these "holy, unspotted sacrifices" which he offers up to God first for the Catholic Church, requesting that He grant her peace (Christ's peace, not as the world gives) to guard, unite, and guide her throughout the world, and then also for the Pope, bishop, and "for all who are orthodox in belief and who profess the Catholic and apostolic faith". In the prayers regarding the sacrifice woven throughout the TLM it is made clear that the sacrifice is offered to atone for the countless sins of the entire body, both living and dead, and it is requested that the sacrifice (described as offered to God out of the gifts He has bestowed upon us) bring honor to the saints and salvation to the Church on earth.
In the NOM, no mention is made regarding the reason for the offering, as if it is unnecessary to beseech God to help and guide His people. The sins of the faithful are mentioned only once, near the beginning with the "I confess", if it is used. The gifts are our offering to God; no humble acknowledgement that everything we have comes from Him. The need to have Jesus, the Victim and Priest atone for our sins is also not mentioned. It is called, in one common version, simply, the "sacrifice of our reconciliation." In the other common version, it is not mentioned at all.
Another very serious problem with the NOM is that it contains erroneous statements; concepts that directly contradict scriptural concepts. Here is an example of four such statements, followed by the scriptural definitions of the concepts:
1. "It is our salvation to give thanks to the Father". St. Paul teaches us that "Our salvation is in Christ Jesus" (2Ti 2:10). It must be worked out with fear and trembling, for God works in us to accomplish it according to His good will (Php 2:12-13).
2. God makes all things holy. Scripture is clear that only some people are (or will become) holy. Of the four examples of the sowing of seed that Jesus teaches in the parable of the sower, only one part brings forth fruit (Mt 13:3-23). The prophet Isaiah speaks of the "sons of the sorceress, the seed of the adulterer" calling them further, "wicked children" and "a false seed" (Is 57:3-5), and Jesus tells the Jews who do not hear or believe in His words that they are not of the seed of Abraham, rather, they are of their father the devil, who is a liar and the father thereof (Jn 8:43-44).
3. God is asked to advance the peace and salvation of all the world. Yet regarding those who would deny Him, Christ warned that He came not to bring peace, but a sword (Mt 10:32). When the heavenly army appeared before the shepherds to announce the birth of Christ, they proclaimed "peace to men of good will" (Lu 2:13-14). Finally, Jesus tells His disciples that the peace He leaves with them is not the peace of the world (Jn 14:27).
4. God gathers a people so that a pure sacrifice may be offered in His name. What does this sentence mean? According to St. Paul, the sacrifice is Jesus Christ. "Holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and made higher than the heavens (Heb 7:26-27). And again, St. Paul proclaims, Jesus Christ appeared for the destruction of sin, by the sacrifice of Himself (Heb 9:26).
This last example shows my first reaction to the statement. However, as the actual text of the Eucharistic Prayer uses the phrase "from the rising of the sun unto its setting", my parish priest pointed out that the mentioned "sacrifice" is actually taken from a prophecy by Malachias:
From the rising of the sun even to the going down, My name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to My name a clean oblation: for My name is great among the Gentiles. (Mal 1:11)
As this passage therefore does prefigure the sacrifice of the Mass with Christ as the Victim, it is unclear how this promise of favor means we are automatically God's chosen people simply by virtue of showing up for Mass, as the phrase in the Eucharistic Prayer would seem to suggest. While this is obviously an important omission, it is especially so in light of the context of Malachias' prophecy. God is angry with the Israelites because they have brought Him an inferior sacrifice; the "rapine, the lame and the sick". They have not brought Him His portion from the best of their flocks, in humble and thankful acknowledgement of His love and great blessing. By the words of the phrase, the congregation may not understand that the mentioned "sacrifice" refers to Christ Jesus. But even if they do, they are not told that they must show their love for God by turning from sin and following His commandments in order to make an acceptable offering.
Finally, there is the change in the wording of the consecration itself, which was originally eat (and drink) all of this. The statement is changed in the NOM to eat (and drink) all of you. Jesus never specified the words "all of you", even though only He and His faithful apostles were celebrating the feast. The effect this new wording could have on the congregation is seriously problematic, as the spirit of humility brought forth in the TLM is replaced by a spirit of entitlement: All should (or may) eat and drink. This is a dangerous concept, for as St. Paul warned, "he who eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation unto himself". This issue of entitlement replacing humility also occurs in the NOM when the priest prays "May we merit to be co-heirs of eternal life." Consider the difference in tone, and the outcome of the TLM version. The priest prays that God might grant the faithful "some share" in the fellowship of the saints--weighing not our merits but granting us pardon. This is scriptural. We are saved by God's grace when we sincerely attempt to live by his commandments. We do not merit our salvation. Overall, the NOM focuses much more attention on communion with the congregation instead of the humble and reverent worship of God. In the NOM, we are the "body of Christ", stated as fact like the Protestants who believe in salvation by a simple statement of belief with no distinction regarding one's current state of grace (and very rarely are the faithful reminded from the pulpit that they must turn from sin).
By now, the NOM has been celebrated in most Catholic Churches for more than 40 years. The faithful still come to worship God. The more devout still believe in the Real Presence. But the meaning of our relationship with God has been obscured by this liturgy. How could this Mass be as pleasing to God as the TLM, and isn't pleasing God the point of our worship? In some of the more "modern" or "liberal" parishes, believers are actually taught to focus on communion with each other instead of the worship of God. When priests (and seemingly, much of the current Church hierarchy) teach the "we are the church" liberation theology, or any form of relativism as pertains to the holy scriptures, they behave in a manner reminiscent of St. Peter's description of the false prophets who would arise within the Church, (2Pet 2:14) "Having eyes full of adultery and sin that ceases not", "alluring unstable souls". All this to promote their own interest in worldly gain. And when this the solemn, holy Mass is turned into a mere meeting of friends, the people are led away from the truth, and the Lord becomes a stumbling block and a rock of offense. They are taught to participate in an inferior sacrifice, perhaps without their knowledge, just like the Israelites participated in the sacrifice instigated by King Saul.
In Salem, Oregon, capitol of one of the most liberal and thus morally destructive states in the union, the TLM is currently available only once per month at 6:45 a.m. at St. Joseph Catholic Church. Despite the early hour, many people attend, even coming from out of town to celebrate this most beautiful and reverent liturgy.
As the Church, under the direction of Pope Paul VI, made the decision to change with the times by imposing the NOM, the resulting man-centered world view adopted by many Catholics has damaged their understanding of how to effect positive change in the secular environment. For many good and sincere Catholics work diligently and tirelessly to fight the evils of the culture of death, the re-definition of marriage and other pertinent issues. Yet without the understanding of relationship with God that comes through the TLM, they are left without proper armor and weapons for fighting the battle.
Many have forgotten that change for good in society can occur only by the power of God when a humble and contrite people--a people willing to reject sin for the love of the commandments of God--offer up prayers and penance. We must remember and believe as absolute truth, that it was God Almighty who parted the Red Sea, who made the walls of Jericho fall down, who gave victory in battle to the lowly many times against tremendous odds, who felled the giant Goliath, and who offers salvation through the precious body and blood of His Son our Lord Jesus Christ. "Our help comes from the Lord, who made heaven and earth".
"Convert us Lord, let us see your face and we shall be saved."This is a fact forgotten by the world in a day when God seems far away. But Catholics above all others need to know and believe and understand. We cannot be like the world because we are to be the light of the world which the darkness cannot comprehend. In order to become what God wants us to be, we need at least the option of attending the Traditional Latin Mass regularly. We need to be reminded of what it really means to be good Christians.
what are the verbs in the Greek.....aorist? imperative? in the indicative? etc.
ἀφέωνται perfect indicative middle/passive
κρατῆτε present subjunctive active
κεκράτηνται perfect indicative middle/passive
Now answer my question.
getting better....what do these mean?
Last question I answer, since I’ve answered several of yours now without getting an answer to my original question and my time is limited.
Aorist subjunctive active = potential action (hence the “might” in the English translation).
Perfect indicative middle/passive = present state resulting from completed action (hence the English rendering as “are forgiven”/”are retained”).
When these verb forms are combined together in this context, together they refer to a potential action resulting in a completed state—i.e., if the apostles might do X (forgive/retain sins), Y is the resulting completed state (sins in a state of being forgiven/retained).
If the people did not repent their sins were retained.
We see another example of this in Acts 3:11-21.
11While he was clinging to Peter and John, all the people ran together to them at the so-called portico of Solomon, full of amazement.
12But when Peter saw this, he replied to the people, “Men of Israel, why are you amazed at this, or why do you gaze at us, as if by our own power or piety we had made him walk?
13“The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus, the one whom you delivered and disowned in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release Him.
14“But you disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked for a murderer to be granted to you,
15but put to death the Prince of life, the one whom God raised from the dead, a fact to which we are witnesses.
16“And on the basis of faith in His name, it is the name of Jesus which has strengthened this man whom you see and know; and the faith which comes through Him has given him this perfect health in the presence of you all.
17“And now, brethren, I know that you acted in ignorance, just as your rulers did also.
18“But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled.
19“Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord;
20and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you,
21whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time. Acts 3:11-21 NASB
How could their sins be forgiven if no one could absolve them? Are those sins not retained?
9If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us. 1My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. 1 John 1:9-1 John 2:2 NASB
13When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. Col 2:13-14
Revelation 12:11 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of the testimony, and they loved not their lives unto death.
First of all, the immediate context of John 20:23 is the Gospel of John, where Jesus has a lot to say about "remaining" in Him, what this requires, and how it relates to the authority he is delegating the Apostles. Back in 6:56, for example, he said that whoever "eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him", a reference to the Eucharist. Later Jesus will pick up on this "remaining" language in 15:5, where He talks about the branches remaining in the vine. This is right after He talked about the sending of the Holy Spirit in 14:25, anticipating 20:22, indicating that John 20:23 should be interpreted in the wider context of this ongoing theme in John. I'm not going to exegete the entire Gospel of John here, but I'll touch on one other relevant, related theme: passages where John quotes Jesus discussing washing and baptism. This goes all the way back to Chapter 1, but to highlight one important passage in 13:10, Jesus says, "A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you." Notice here that Jesus is talking about a cleansing--that is, a remission of sins--which occurs *after* a person has "had a bath", and which involves only "washing the feet" as opposed to the whole body--i.e., a remission that occurs after baptism. What is Jesus talking about here? He tells us more in Chapter 15, where he uses a different but similar metaphor, that of pruning the branches of the vine, which uses the "remaining" language I have highlighted. This remaining in the vine requires the Apostles to remain in Christ, but it also requires those the Apostles evangelize to remain in unity with the Apostles, as Jesus prays in 17:20f. John also picks up on some of these themes in 1 John where he distinguishes between those who have fellowship with the Apostles (1 John 1:3) and those who "went out from us but did not really belong to us" (1 John 2:19), like Judas back in John 13. So the authority of the Apostles is intertwined with this whole set of topics. I could say more about this, but like I say, I do not have time to exegete the entire Gospel of John here. I would recommend St. John Chrysostom's Homilies on the Gospel of John and St. Augustine's Tractates on the Gospel of John for much more detailed commentary.
Beyond John's writings, the context of John 20:23 also includes some relevant passages in Matthew where Jesus first demonstrated his own authority to forgive sins (9:1-7--and note the phrase that God had "given such authority to men") and then delegated his authority to first Peter (16:18-19) and then his disciples (18:18), giving them the power of "binding and loosing". This "binding and loosing" authority is a rabbinical phrase that had referred to the authority of Moses previously restricted to the priests and scribes but now transferred to the Apostles. See the Jewish Encylopedia's article on Binding and Loosing and compare with Matthew 5-7 where there is a theme of Jesus' authority being greater than the teachers of the Law. And why is it greater?--one reason is because unlike the teachers of the Law, Jesus can forgive sins, as Matthew told us in 9:7. Jesus again refers to this authority when he gives the Great Commission to the Eleven at the end of Matthew 28: "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I will be with you always, to the very end of the age." (28:18-20) Jesus' authority--which includes the authority to forgive sins--is connected here to the authority Jesus gives the Eleven to baptize and teach obedience to all He has commanded. The apostolic authority to forgive sins mentioned in John is here again derived from Jesus' authority, delegated to the apostles--to use John's metaphor again, as the vine to its branches. Conversely, apart from the vine, the branches have no authority to forgive sins. We cannot simply take it upon ourselves to forgive sins apart from the authority of Christ that he has delegated to His Church.
There is much more that could be said about this citing other NT passages and early church commenators, but since again I only have time to do so much exegesis through this medium--I am not on here much during the work week--I will leave off by recommmending reading Oscar Daniel Watkins' 2-volume A history of penance, being a study of authorities (A) for the whole church to 450 A. D. (B) for the Western church from 450 A. D. to 1215, A. D. (volume 1 at this link) for more detailed discussion of how the early church interpreted the passages I have mentioned in relation to the sacrament of penance, from the 1st century on. As the work of Watkins and other authors demonstrates, the Catholic teaching on John 20:23 is in accord with the Apostolic teaching as documented from the founding of the Church.
And this authority is in Christ. Christ forgives our sins. Peter and the disciples acknowledged this. We do not have examples of Peter telling people, "I forgive your sins." He told them through belief in Jesus their sins were forgiven as noted in Acts 2 and 3.
This goes all the way back to Chapter 1, but to highlight one important passage in 13:10, Jesus says, "A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you." Notice here that Jesus is talking about a cleansing--that is, a remission of sins--which occurs *after* a person has "had a bath", and which involves only "washing the feet" as opposed to the whole body--i.e., a remission that occurs after baptism.
Let's keep it in context. I agree the disciples' sins have been forgiven but the question is how?
From now on I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may believe that I am He. 20“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who receives whomever I send receives Me; and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.” John 13:19-20 NASB
We have the example of Cornelius also illustrating baptism does not forgive the sins of an individual.
43“Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.” 44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 47“Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” 48And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days. Acts 10:43-48 NASB
The whole Gospel of John is about faith/believe in Christ. In reference to John 6 Peter acknowledged it was about belief and not "eating and drinking" the flesh and blood which would be in violation of the OT prohibitions against eating the blood.
68Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69“We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.” John 6:68-69 NASB
Bingo. Unfortunately Paul VI did a whole lot of damage with his promulgation of Vatican II.
Regarding the passages from John and Acts where you highlight belief as a mechanism for the forgiveness of sins, yes, Jesus and the NT writers do emphasize the role of belief at times, but they never teach you are saved by "faith alone" as Martin Luther did (for more detailed discussion on what "faith" meant for Paul and 1st-century Judaism and why it didn't mean what Luther thought, I'd refer you to the work of E.P. Sanders). For example, in the Sermon on the Mount, when Jesus is teaching the Lord's Prayer, He says, "For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins." (Matthew 5:14-15). When the Rich Young Man asked Jesus, "what good thing must I do to get eternal life?", Jesus answered, "If you want to enter life, keep the commandments," and then He got more specific about which commandments (Matthew 19:16f and parallel passages)--He did not say, "Believe alone." When He gives the Great Commission in Mark, He says, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16); He does not say, "Whoever believes will be saved, don't worry about getting baptized." I could give more examples from the Lord--and His word is enough for me--but let's go on to the Apostles. James said, "As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead." Luther wanted to take the Book of James out of the Bible because it did not fit his "faith alone" theology--no one taught "faith alone" before him. He based his "faith alone" theology on a misreading of Paul, but if we read the entirety of what Paul taught, he didn't teach what Luther taught. In the same passages where Luther thinks Paul is teaching "faith alone", we find Paul also saying things like, "We were buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life" (Romans 6:4); and "if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die" (Romans 8:13); and "The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love." (Galatians 5:6) For Paul, as for Jesus (Matthew 7:12, 22:37-40, John 15:10, etc.), the key emphasis is on love (charity) working with faith, not faith alone. This is tied to what Paul says about the Holy Spirit, which IS love, because God is love (cf. 1 John 4:16). He talks about this in many places, but one key verse is Romans 5:5: "And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out His love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us." The Holy Spirit, love, and faith are all tied together--along with hope, also mentioned in Romans 5:5 and in 1 Corinthians 13:13--because faith, hope, and love are all gifts--that is, graces--of the Holy Spirit. It is God's grace that saves us, in the form of the Holy Spirit poured into our hearts, which is at the same time a gift of faith, hope, and love. Hence in Ephesians 2:8, Paul says, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourself, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast." The faith that saves is not mere human belief, it is the gift of supernatural faith granted by the Holy Spirit--just as Jesus told Peter when Peter confessed He was the Christ, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven." (Matthew 16:17)
Does acknowledging the role of faith, grace, or charity in salvation exclude the role of baptism? By no means! What does Paul say about baptism? He ties baptism to the gift of the Holy Spirit and to faith. I have already quoted Romans 6:4 as one example of this. Another is Galatians 3:26-27: "You are all sons of God through faith in Jesus Christ, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." He tells Titus, "He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5). Just as Peter says the water of Noah's Flood "symbolizes baptism that now saves you also" (1 Peter 3:21). And Jesus Himself says, "I tell you the truth, unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5)--and I have already quoted our Lord's words in Mark 16:16 as well.
What of Cornelius, then? You cite this as illustrating that baptism does not forgive the sins of an individual. But what does Peter say about it? Read on to Acts 11:15-16: "As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. Then I remembered what the Lord had said, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'" Peter himself identifies Cornelius' experience as baptism: baptism with the Holy Spirit--which we just saw Jesus talking about in John 3:5 while referring to water baptism in the same breath. And so what is the next thing Peter does as soon as Cornelius receives the baptism of the Holy Spirit? He immediately calls for water baptism: "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have. So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ." (Acts 11:47-48) There are several things to observe here. One is that the Holy Spirit is the key factor in Christian baptism (as opposed to John the Baptist's baptism by water alone), and the Spirit can baptize by Himself without water and indeed without any human agency. However, far from excluding the need for water baptism, it calls for water baptism as the proper response by Peter (imitating the example set by Christ, who did not need to be baptized, but did so "to fulfill all righteousness"--Matthew 3:15). Water baptism normally accompanies Spirit baptism in the NT; Cornelius' case illustrates that God can also perform Spirit baptism distinct from water baptism if He so chooses, but that is His prerogative: it does not give believers a license to ignore Jesus' command to baptize, just as Peter insists that Cornelius must be baptized immediately after receiving the Holy Spirit. Catholic theology discusses Cornelius' case in relation to what is called baptism of desire, recognizing that God sometimes acts in exceptional circumstances by initiating Spirit baptism separately from water baptism, but also recognizing that He commanded us to perform water baptism at the time of conversion under normal circumstances. Water baptism thus "saves"--as Peter and Paul said in the passages quoted above--in the sense that it is normally the occasion of Spirit baptism, even if Spirit baptism sometimes happens first, as in Cornelius' case. Spirit baptism, water baptism, love, hope, and faith, are complementary, not contradictory.
Back to work for me--will check back on the thread as time allows. Meanwhile, God bless you.
I agree a person needs to be baptized to follow our Lord's example and command to do so. However, getting wet does not save you....it is faith in Christ that saves. Without repentance and faith in Him a person would only be getting wet in baptism.
I'm not discussing an intellectual faith which James writes against. I'm talking about the faith that believes Jesus and will follow Him. It's hard to convey in writing the meaning behind what I'm saying. If a person is a follower of Christ they will be responsive as was Abraham. Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. Both Paul and James agree on that.
No one in Christianity is saying someone can just say, "I believe" and that's it. There will be fruit that is produced.
To clarify your point regarding Titus 3:5 which you took a bit out of context.
4But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared,
5He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,
6whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
7so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
There are no deeds worthy enough to earn our salvation. The NT is clear on this when read in context.
Faith in Christ is what saves us which is followed up by baptism.
Question: if someone is in a car accident and is fatally wounded and someone is there to present the Gospel and the injured person believes....are they saved without water baptism?
Lets put Acts 11:15-16 in context.
The Spirit told me to go with them without misgivings. These six brethren also went with me and we entered the man’s house. 13“And he reported to us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, and saying, ‘Send to Joppa and have Simon, who is also called Peter, brought here; 14and he will speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household.’ 15“And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning. 16“And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17“Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” 18When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.”
We do. We confess our sins to Jesus through the ministry of the priest of Jesus ... like Jesus told us to.
Why do you guys make John 20:23 into a dead letter? Isn't every Scripture God-breathed and profitable for instruction in righteousness? Jesus wouldn't have told the Apostles to forgive sins if he didn't intend for them to forgive sins (in His name).
LOL. You really ought to stop and reflect that this is an area where the Latin Catholic West and the Greek Orthodox East are in almost perfect agreement. Do you really want to posit that American fundamentalists understand Greek, but the Greeks themselves don't??
You posit it is impossible to understand/learn a foreign language. You're the one who needs to stop.
Using your logic(?) no one would ever be able to understand a foreign language. Please.
There was a thread posted a while back by salvation where msgr pope noted he was becoming familiar with the Greek. What a concept. Studying the Kione Greek to understand the Bible. It makes me wonder if catholic priests have to study the Greek while in seminary or do they just focus on the Latin to perform the mass?
Next you'll be telling us we can't understand the Hebrew either.
Why do you guys continue to add to the letter?
Isn't every Scripture God-breathed and profitable for instruction in righteousness?
Yes. But notice "catholic tradition" is not included in that passage.
Jesus wouldn't have told the Apostles to forgive sins if he didn't intend for them to forgive sins (in His name).
They did. See the accounts in Acts 2 and 3 as previously noted.
Jerusalem was a cosmopolitan city in the Roman Empire. When Our Lord addressed the centurion He mostly likely used Latin. Multiple languages are not that difficult to acquire.
It is a rather odd notion that Latin is necessary for salvation, no one has ever claimed that. Having a liturgical language is common though.
Possible. But it's more likely He addressed him in Kione Greek. It was the common language in that part of the Empire at the time.
It is a rather odd notion that Latin is necessary for salvation, no one has ever claimed that. Having a liturgical language is common though.
Sadly, roman catholicism spends more time on the Latin than the Kione. If they focused on the latter it would aid in an understanding of the Word.
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.