The Message of the Letter to the Hebrews

Archdiocese of Washington ^ | 01-14-19 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[Mrs. Don-o]

Yeah. But you end up with, "Well, Mom's a Free-Will Baptist but Dad's a Calvinist, Antonia's Pentecostal, and Aidan's United Methodist --so you could get 5 different answers from 4 churches, and there's just one Bible so that's no problem, right? right?"

Historically, that's the reason there have been Councils, the prototype being the one in Jerusalem, so they'd all be in one Body, with one Head, led by the same Holy Spirit.

[boatbums]

+2

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Yeah. But you end up with, "Well, Mom's a Free-Will Baptist but Dad's a Calvinist, Antonia's Pentecostal, and Aidan's United Methodist --so you could get 5 different answers from 4 churches, and there's just one Bible so that's no problem, right? right?"

Really, a straw man argument Mrs. Don-o?

On the issue of church discipline, which involves moral issues typically and or disputes among members, all that matters is what Scripture says to do or not do. The local church has responsibility to handle these things and enact church discipline, if necessary.

It appears that perhaps you or others don't understand that believers in Christ see themselves as Christians first. Their first allegiance is to Him. The worship in various assemblies locally.

In matters of theology, the pejorative, made-up groups you posted would belong to a larger group of affiliated churches.

Historically, that's the reason there have been Councils, the prototype being the one in Jerusalem, so they'd all be in one Body, with one Head, led by the same Holy Spirit.

There have been councils to respond to threats from without and within the historic churches.

Again, there is only one real gathering, one body, one Head, and one Spirit. It just isn't the Roman denomination. It is every true believer in Christ, of all time. He has local gatherings throughout the world. Also has quite the large assembly in eternity I read...

[af_vet_1981]

It is irrelevant whether καθ’ ὅλης modified the land of Israel or the Church/churches within the land of Israel. The Church/churches throughout the land of Israel (the word Palestine was used in error, was that deliberate?) were one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.
1. The Church/churches in the land of Israel were holy (walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost).
2. The Church/churches throughout the land of Israel (the word Palestine was used in error) were catholic ("on the whole", "according to the whole" or "in general").
3. The Church/churches in the land of Israel were apostolic and the Apostle Peter (Peter passed throughout all quarters) was the chief apostle (gospel of the circumcision was committed unto Peter).

Others mocked and doubted the Apostle Peter's character and authority. However, his authority comes from the Messiah who told him to feed His sheep. Peter loved Him "more than these" and scripturally more than the adversary who accuses him.

• Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
• And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Matthew, Catholic chapter nineteen, Protestant verses twenty seven to twenty eight,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[Mrs. Don-o]

It's not a straw man: it's an illustration of real situations. (It would be a straw if I said you had said that.)

There is one Truth, Eternal and from on high. Sin abounds, but at least if you have such things as councils and catechisms, the errant and the wrongdoer know they're in the wrong.

Arianism, for instance, went on for a century or more after the Council which was called to clarify and affirm the eternal divine nature of Christ; but at least the post-Nicene heretics could be confronted in a more definitive way, once there was a ruling.

[Luircin]

Yeah. But you end up with, “Well, Mom’s a Free-Will Baptist but Dad’s a Calvinist, Antonia’s Pentecostal, and Aidan’s United Methodist —so you could get 5 different answers from 4 churches, and there’s just one Bible so that’s no problem, right? right?”

***

1: That’s the slippery slope fallacy.

2: And doesn’t consider the possibility that Rome might be WRONG. In which case, it’s leading everyone into the path of sin and hellfire.

3: Despite the differences, those denominations confess salvation by grace alone, not we-say-grace-but-your-works-have-to-be-good-enough.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

It's not a straw man: it's an illustration of real situations. (It would be a straw if I said you had said that.)

No, that would just be a lie.

A straw man argument made to appear as a real argument.

"The straw man is a fallacy in which an opponent's argument is overstated or misrepresented in order to be more easily attacked or refuted. The technique often takes quotes out of context or, more often, incorrectly paraphrases or summarizes an opponent's position. Then after "defeating" the position, the attacker claims to have beaten the real thing.

Your post built a false straw man, before demonstrating how weak it was and why needed Rome.

There is one Truth, Eternal and from on high. Sin abounds, but at least if you have such things as councils and catechisms, the errant and the wrongdoer know they're in the wrong.

We agree that there is one Truth, Eternal and from God, known as the Word of God.

God also gave His assemblies the gifts of teacher, pastor to expound the Word of God, as well as the gift of the Holy Spirit to each true believer to lead them into truth by enlightening the Word of God.

Yes, I'm glad you note that many Christian Churches have a statement of faith, detailing the essential truths, catechisms (like the WESTMINSTER CATECHISM), and church discipline to correct the wrongdoers, when necessary.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I apologize.

Re-reading, I do think it could be read as a straw-man argument, because I didn't make it clear it was supposed to be an illustration. Sometimes I hit post without checking out the message first, which leads to thuds-headed stuff which deserves a "geez" reaction.

Sorry and I'll try not to do that again!

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Mrs. Don-o, I do not mean to imply you *purposefully* did this.

I’m just pointing out why I did not accept your argument, because it struck me as a false argument.

Sometimes I hit post before proofreading - especially when posting from my phone with that cursed autocorrect.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Ha! And autocorrect is the worsted.

[MHGinTN]

Possibly one of if not the best post I’ve seen from you ... and I could read it!

[boatbums]

Yeah. But you end up with, "Well, Mom's a Free-Will Baptist but Dad's a Calvinist, Antonia's Pentecostal, and Aidan's United Methodist --so you could get 5 different answers from 4 churches, and there's just one Bible so that's no problem, right? right?" Historically, that's the reason there have been Councils, the prototype being the one in Jerusalem, so they'd all be in one Body, with one Head, led by the same Holy Spirit.

I see this hypothetical "5 different answers from 4 churches...there's just one Bible" straw man tossed out frequently by those who seem to make the same mistakes over and over again in their attempts to disparage the concept of sola Scriptura and non-Catholic churches in order to assert an elitist, superior authority of their own church. Funny thing is, even Roman Catholics don't all agree on everything - even on some of the things they are supposed to.

I think we can distinguish between what are the major tenets of the Christian faith and minor ones or what Scripture calls "disputable matters"? The reasons there were Councils like the first century Jerusalem one was to settle the matter of what the gospel required of people. What made that one authoritative was the presence of actual Apostles and the absence of the New Testament body of Scripture which established what the major tenets of the Christian faith consisted of and remained the authority once all the Apostles had died. Subsequent councils (at least for the first few centuries) established a code of sorts, or a creed, that everyone agreed identified what those major tenets are (the Nicean creed, for example). The churches were in agreement about what the Christian faith was. They held to these beliefs in unison while allowing that there could be freedom over minor issues - in the major things, unity; in minor things, liberty; in all things, love.

In your hypothetical above, I think the question should be WHAT specific belief are you presuming would be different between a Free-Will Baptist versus a Calvinist, Pentecostal or United Methodist? Predestination, maybe? Arguments can be made on both sides, and contrary to what some think, it IS a minor point. The Deity of Jesus Christ? I'd say each one of those denominations accept that major tenet with the possible exception of some Pentecostals. But we know to not believe Jesus is God is heresy. How do we know this? Because we can prove it by Scripture - God did not leave us to wonder about these important things.

[daniel1212]

Jesus said about His Church: ‘Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”

And the same Jesus rebuked the censorious spirit of those who held to "not of our church-no authority" clubs in affirming a man who manifestly did ministry in the name of the Lord:

HIS Word contains all necessary for salvation, assurance and instruction in godliness. That is, if one listens, accepts and follows the words of Jesus. I hope that you believe in all of God’s words in the Bible as they were meant, and not just someone’s personal interpretation. Jesus said about His Church: ‘Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” “If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church.* If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.”.”

Which is simply your erroneous isolationist interpretation, using two different portions of Scripture, in which the former paraphrase refers to the basic message or repentance that the Lord sent His disciple out to preach, (Luke 10:1-16) and simply does not translate into the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility of office as per Rome (and basically in primary cults).

Meanwhile the second (Matthew 18:15-17) refers to the communal, under leadership, judicial disfellowship of the impenitent in a case of personal offense, though in principle it extends to other controversies, and which flows from the OT authoritative binding magisterial office. To which conditional obedience is enjoined, and disobedience punished, (Dt. 17:8-13) but which was not infallible nor was this charism ever promised or essential for preserving faith.

And while as those who sat in the seat of Moses were reproved by itinerant preachers and a Preacher who established their truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, Scripture reproves Rome whose distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.

Therefore, while condemning false interpretation, you are guilty of it if teaching that all that Rome officially teaches is to be submitted to, under the false premise of ensured veracity.

[daniel1212]

There was no Catholicism (capital C) of that day, my dear FRiend. That came hundreds of years later. Apollos, discipled by Priscilla and Aquila, who had become disciples of Paul, whose ministry to the Gentiles planted independent, autonomous baptist assemblies of Christ-followers throughout Anatolia, Macedonia, and Crete.

As a matter of Biblical fact. Obviously, but akin hyper Climate Change religionists, for whom whatever negative can be attributed to that, will be, you have RC devotees for whom whatever positive in Scripture can be attributed to Rome will be.

In the light of the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), we do not see the NT church manifest as,

1. Looking to Peter as the first of a line of popes in an office of perpetual ensured (if conditional) infallibility.

2. Believing in a gospel of final salvation by actually becoming good enough to be with God via RC Purgatory, or a separate class of believers called “saints” who uniquely directly go to Heaven at death.

3. Granting indulgences in order to obtain early release from this condition for oneself or for others.

4. Looking to a separate class of celibate (with rare exceptions) believers (priests ) whose primary unique function is that of offering the Eucharist as a sacrifice for sins, and dispensing it to the people.

5. Believing in said Eucharist as the "true body of Christ and his true Blood" the true and proper and lifegiving flesh and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord,” (CCC 1376; 1381) the true and proper and lifegiving flesh and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord,” being corporeally present whole and entire in His physical "reality.” (Mysterium Fidei, Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, 1965) "the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins,"(CCC 1365) with His human body and human soul, with His bodily organs and limbs and with His human mind, will and feelings,(John A. Hardon, S.J., Part I: Eucharistic Doctrine on the Real Presence) to be consumed as "the actual partaking of Christ in person," . (Catholic Encyclopedia>The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist) this being the food that makes us live for ever in Jesus Christ," (CCC 1415) Refuted, by God's grace.

Praying to created beings in Heaven.

6. Kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them

Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference.

7. Baptism as the act itself effecting regeneration, and without the without repentant personal faith, that being the stated requirement for baptism. (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38)

And the list goes on.

[daniel1212]

.

From the time that any other adjective was applied to the noun “Church,” though, the term was derived not from the name of the divine Founder of this Church,but rather from one of its special characteristics: its catholicity. This body was the one, unique, saving body for everyone, everywhere, as distinguished from the partial or even counterfeit groups or sects that, already in New Testament times (1 John 2:19), were springing up in opposition to the true Church. They have not ceased to spring up in every age since.

Rather, the NT church itself was a small sect, considered counterfeit according to the historical magisterium. And which simply did not hold to distinctive Catholic beliefs according to the manifest light of the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed.

And as Basil testifies, their was must division within.

Basil of Ceasarea, the ascetic 4th century Greek bishop of Caesarea:

Liberated from the error of pagan tradition through the benevolence and loving kindness of the good God, with the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the operation of the Holy Spirit, I was reared from the very beginning by Christian parents. From them I learned even in babyhood the Holy Scriptures which led me to a knowledge of the truth.

When I grew to manhood, I traveled about frequently and, in the natural course of things, I engaged in a great many worldly affairs. Here I observed that the most harmonious relations existed among those trained in the pursuit of each of the arts and sciences; while in the Church of God alone, for which Christ died and upon which He poured out in abundance the Holy Spirit, I noticed that many disagree violently with one another and also in their understanding of the Holy Scriptures.

Most alarming of all is the fact that I found the very leaders of the Church themselves at such variance with one another in thought and opinion, showing so much opposition to the commands of our Lord Jesus Christ, and so mercilessly rendering asunder the Church of God and cruelly confounding His flock that, in our day, with the rise of the Anomoeans, there is fulfilled in them as never before the prophecy, "˜Of your own selves shall men arise speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.´

Witnessing such disorders as these and perplexed as to what the cause and source of such evil might be, I at first was in a state, as it were, of thick darkness and, as if on a balance, I veered now this way, now that"”attracted now to one man, now to another, under the influence of protracted association with these persons, and then thrust in the other direction, as I bethought myself of the validity of the Holy Scriptures.

After a long time spent in this state of indecision and while I was still busily searching for the cause I have mentioned, there came to my mind the Book of Judges which tells how each man did what was right in his own eyes and gives the reason for this in the words" "˜In those days there was no king in Israel.´ With these words in my mind, then, I applied also to the present circumstances that explanation which, incredible and frightening as it may be, is quite truly pertinent when it is understood; for never before has there arisen such discord and quarreling as now among the the members of the Church in consequence of their turning away from the one, great, and true God, only King of the universe... St. Basil : Ascetical Works Fathers of the Church, Volume 9

, And for some time heretics became the party in majority, and Roman unity was much thru popes who were more like "Christianized" Caesars than Peters.

Eamon Duffy (Former president of Magdalene College and member of Pontifical Historical Commission, and current Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Cambridge) and provides more on the Roman church becoming more like the empire in which it was found as a result of state adoption of (an already deformed) Christianity:

The conversion of Constantine had propelled the Bishops of Rome into the heart of the Roman establishment...They [bishops of Rome] set about [creating a Christian Rome] by building churches, converting the modest tituli (community church centres) into something grander, and creating new and more public foundations, though to begin with nothing that rivaled the great basilicas at the Lateran and St. Peter’s...

These churches were a mark of the upbeat confidence of post-Constantinian Christianity in Rome. The popes were potentates, and began to behave like it. Damasus perfectly embodied this growing grandeur. An urbane career cleric like his predecessor Liberius, at home in the wealthy salons of the city, he was also a ruthless power-broker, and he did not he did not hesitate to mobilize both the city police and [a hired mob of gravediggers with pickaxes] to back up his rule…

Self-consciously, the popes began to model their actions and their style as Christian leaders on the procedures of the Roman state. — Eamon Duffy “Saints and Sinners”, p. • .

Upon Pope Liberius's death September 24 A.D. 366, violent disorders broke out over the choice of a successor. A group who had remained consistently loyal to Liberius immediately elected his deacon Ursinus in the Julian basilica and had him consecrated Bishop, but the rival faction of Felix's adherence elected Damasus, who did not hesitate to consolidate his claim by hiring a gang of thugs, storming the Julian Basilica in carrying out a three-day massacre of the Ursinians

On Sunday, October 1 his partisans seized the Lateran Basilica, and he was there consecrated. He then sought the help of the city prefect (the first occasion of a Pope in enlisting the civil power against his adversaries), and he promptly expelled Ursinus and his followers from Rome. Mob violence continued until October 26, when Damasus's men attacked the Liberian Basilica, where the Ursinians had sought refuge; the pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus reports that they left 137 dead on the field. Damasus was now secure on his throne; but the bishops of Italy were shocked by the reports they received, and his moral authority was weakened for several years....

Damasus was indefatigable in promoting the Roman primacy, frequently referring to Rome as 'the apostolic see' and ruling that the test of a creed's orthodoxy was its endorsement by the Pope.... This [false claim to] succession gave him a unique [presumptuous claim to] judicial power to bind and loose, and the assurance of this infused all his rulings on church discipline. — Kelly, J. N. D. (1989). The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. USA: Oxford University Press. pp. 32 ,34;

More by God's grace.

[daniel1212]

But didn’t Apollos and Priscilla convert to the Catholicism of that day?

No, for they simply could not convert to that which did not exist, as manifest with her distinctive beliefs that we do not affirm in common with her.

Next thing we know you will have them bowing before statues in praise and adulation and praying to created beings in Heaven, and finding ordained celibate "hiereus" in order to consume Christ under the appearance of bread and wine that actually do not exist but is the "true body" corporeally present (until the non-existent bread and wine manifests decay) in order to obtain spiritual life, and looking to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning over all from Rome.

No wonder Rome made use of forgeries .

[boatbums]

Thanks for this. I appreciate your extensive research which has become quite useful in educating anyone with open eyes and a willing mind to know the facts of the matter. Far too often on these threads some Roman Catholics just blurt out their hackneyed and repeatedly disproved claims as if they had never read anything contrary to them. I don’t know if they read your comments or just skip through them or flat out refuse to believe them even in the face of overwhelming proof, but there shouldn’t be any excuse for not knowing the facts. Hopefully, these threads through the years have provided a platform for exposing the falsehoods and deceptions within this religion and the truth of the glorious gospel of God’s grace shines through and souls are saved.

[HarleyD]

So it may be postulated that: (a) Hebrews is a document that was addressed to the same kind of narrow audience as Peter's was; (b) Paul was a recognized author of inspired Scripture; and (c) therefore Peter is essentially saying that Paul is the author of the Hebrewa letter.

I would say your logic is flawed.

A) The letter of Hebrews isn't to a "narrow audience". It is a letter to all Hebrews.

B) It is refreshing to hear a Catholic claim that Paul's writings was inspired. It has been my experience here that not all Catholics believe that. Be that as it may, the mystery of who wrote Hebrews doesn't make it any less inspired. We certainly wouldn't say Ruth, Esther, Job, Jonah, etc. aren't inspired even though we don't know who the author is. There are many inspired writers, not just Paul. Some we know, some we don't.

C) I see nowhere in the letters of Peter where it claims Paul wrote Hebrews.

[HarleyD]

There is no need to speculate as to who is the author (anonymous Jewish male) as long as one accepts its validity.

Yes Paul called Timothy brother but it is obvious that Paul considered him his "child". However, I would agree with your basic statement that it really doesn't matter. We accept it as God's inspired word.

[Elsie]

Paul did call Timothy "ἀδελφός" (adelphos, brother) in four other books, so that argument can be discounted.

It that how Rome 'discounts' Jesus' brothers to mere cousins?