I have been here for 12,000 posts, my friend. I did not do that by avoiding, or as regarding how we started here, by calling others names.
I suggest you start a thread on your Transcendent thoughts.
Jon
- Status
I suggest you start a thread on your Transcendent thoughts.
Jon
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
Btw, my last question to you was somewhat new. How DO you know that Lutherans have valid sacraments? Who decides that? How do you know that the decider has authority to do so?
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
Um… I never called anyone a name. I commented on a post that said position X was heretical. That is not name calling. If X is heretical, then X is heretical. Not everyone who holds to heresy is a heretic if that is what you ended up thinking yourself.
So as far as I can see, I think you took the heresy comment a little too personally.
T
Third_Day
Guest
Jon, I don’t think you understand the meaning of the giving of keys. They were a sign of authority. That is why Christ only gave them to the Rock… He possessed an authority that no one else had.
You claim that the Lutheran denomination has the authority to bind and to loose. Let’s see if that can be played out in real life.
Jon can you tell me how the Lutherans fulfill this promise of Christ?
In Matthew 18:15-20 Jesus tells us that there is a Church that has the authority to settle issues. In this passage Jesus says that if a sin is committed between brothers they should try to settle the case. If it cannot be settled they are to “take it to the church” and if they refuse to listen “even to the church” they are to be excommunicated. Since you believe that your church has the authority to bind on earth what is bound in heaven how do the Lutherans fulfill this promise of Christ and His Church’s authority?
Let’s say that a Baptist pastor accuses a Lutheran pastor of heresy and charges that the Lutheran is leading people astray and straight to hell in regards to his doctrine on infant baptism. What “Church” will they take this dispute to in order to settle the issue?
According to Jesus in Matthew 18:15-20, there is such a Church and if they refuse to listen to this Church they are to be excommunicated. The Baptist won’t let the Lutheran decide the issue. The Lutheran pastor won’t let the Baptist decide the issue. The Lutheran won’t “take it to” the Zion Bible Church to decide because they agree with the Baptists. The Baptists won’t “take it to “the Methodists to decide because they agree with the Lutherans.
The command of Jesus to “take it to the Church” to settle the issue still stands today. It did not end in the first century. This indicates that Christ established only one authoritative Church with the authority to bind on earth what is bound in heaven and the authority to excommunicate someone from the Church.
Jon, where will the Lutheran and the Baptist go to settle the issue? To what Church will they go?
A
Augustus24
Guest
From reputable historians who have done much more historical research then I, for example:
"The idea that Peter was given some special power that could be handed on to a successor runs into the problem that he had no successor. The idea that there is an “apostolic succession” to Peter’s fictional episcopacy did not arise for several centuries, at which time Peter and others were retrospectively called bishops of Rome, to create an imagined succession.Even so, there has not been an unbroken chain of popes." -Garry Wills “Why I Am A Catholic”
Not until the second half of the second century, under Anicetus, do we find compelling evidence for a monarchical episcopacy, and when it emerges, it is to manage relief shipments to dispersed Christians as well as social aid for the Roman poor -Peter Lampe "Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes (pp. 403–4)
“There was … no individual, committee or council of leaders within the Christian movement that could pronounce on which beliefs and practices were acceptable and which were not." -Roger Collins “Keepers of the Keys of Heaven: A History of the Papacy”*
[Peter was ]the beneficiary of the famous ‘rock and keys’ text in Matthew. There is no evidence that Rome exploited this text to assert its primacy before about 250 - and then, interestingly enough, in conflict with the aggressive episcopalian Cyprian. -A History of Christianity, pp. 61, by Paul Johnson
Chrysostom and Augustine both upheld the rock as Peter’s confession of Christ,
In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’…But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. **But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. *But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1).
- Else it were superfluous to say, “You are Son of Jonas;” but since he had said, “Son of God,” to point out that He is so Son of God, as the other son of Jonas, of the same substance with Him that begot Him, therefore He added this, “And I say unto you, You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;” Matthew 16:18 that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd. “And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” “And if not against it, much more not against me. So be not troubled because you are shortly to hear that I shall be betrayed and crucified.” -Chrysostom Homily 54*
Origen for example, believed that the keys extended to all Apostles and all believers:
‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ If any one says this to Him…he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters…And to all such the saying of the Savior might be spoken, ‘Thou art Peter’ etc., down to the words, ‘prevail against it.’ But what is the it? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church, or is it the Church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the Church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds His Church, nor against the Church will the gates of Hades prevail. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which the Christ builds the Church, nor the Church built by Jesus upon the rock -Origen, Commentary on Matthew ch 10-11*
Cyprian believed all the Apostles were coequal:
*
Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power; but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one; which one Church, in the Song of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the Person of our Lord: My dove, My spotless one, is but one; she is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her (Cant. 9:6) (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3, p. 133).*
A
Augustus24
Guest
Rome cannot define something without the consent of the entire Church.
Yes. The Apostle urges us to hold fast to what has been taught by them either by word or by letter. Since they didn’t teach the papacy as Rome defines it, we must reject it as new and novel doctrine.
From scripture urging us to hold fast to what they had taught and not go beyond what has been written, and to be weary of so called “apostles” coming into the church teaching new doctrine.
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
Did you read the link I provided for you? It goes through most of the writings of Chrysostom and show how he treats the subject of the Papacy.
Also, there seems to be some confusion here that “If the strict definition did not exist at the time of the first Apostles, it is invalid”. I do not think such a premise is intuitively clear. So if I may ask, why adhere to such a statement?
Because the BIBLE itself as not a concept that existed in the Church till around 400 AD. There was OT scriptures and writings that were read in various churches before the Eucharist. But there was really no concept called the Bible and neither was there any need to believe that such a book exists and it is binding to consider it the inerrant WORD OF GOD. So if one were to go by this thought process, one could say that the concept of the Bible itself is a later constructed concept.
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
Then what is the point of appealing to Rome at any point in a matter of disagreement? The whole point of a disagreement suggests that there are two opposing views i.e. no agreement in the Church.
So does it not seem that your position of when Rome can define is an untenable position?
But they did not teach of the existence of the Bible as a collection of 73 ( 66 if you are non-Catholic ) books that included writings from even people who were not first Apostles (Luke, Mark, and even Paul who was not a first Apostle).
Is it not true that the Bible was a concept derived from an idea of the implications of what Apostles taught rather than something they explicitly taught as should exist?
It is worth mentioning that Rome does not say it is adding to Scripture. Rome merely interprets Scripture and justifies its papacy using the passage from Matthew for an example. This is the same way Rome interpreted from Tradition that a book such as the Bible must exist and every book in it should contain the Word of God.
Rome even made it binding that people believe the entire Bible as the inerrant word of God which was not something that the early Apostles ever explicitly preached. They had no idea that such a book would exist. In fact, such a binding rule did not exist till 400 AD.
So to clarify, Rome does not teach new doctrine in the sense Apostles refer to the word “NEW”. Rome merely defines doctrine from the Divine revelation handed down through Tradition and Scripture.
C
cwhat
Guest
At any rate when Constantine made ‘cristianity’ the state religion,But I do like to be amused once in awhileBut it truly does bring a hint of sadness to think how one can still embrace these errors. Perhaps you are right. Something for me to think in the future but now since I am here, I would rather continue.
No Protestant actually admits that. But if you really think about the practice, it is essentially what it is.
Your group of Protestants (that call themselves Lutheran) have decided on x,y,z as things to believe. The group has even drawn out ideas such as “x is what means to be a Church” and other sort of definitions. Every Protestant member accepts these positions because after reading the Bible, it makes sense to them as a possible line of interpretation.
Essentially, this is every man playing Pope. The Pope and the teaching magesterium is the final authority regarding all matters of faith, including that of Biblical interpretation. In the Protestant case, every Protestant is involved in doing just that or decided that they have the authority to designate a group of persons (elders, leaders, whatever), who have the authority to be Popes.
Well, the OP could certainly get insight in to the Atheist thinking process by discussing with any person who randomly holds and gives assent to a claim regarding the Transcendent. The nature of belief in both cases are very similar. It is a random assent based on ones own experience or lack of experience of the Transcendent.
he in effect took on the title ‘Ponificus maximus’ or pope
and became the leader of the church,
defining doctrine such as making the final desicion as to whether God is one God or a trinity of gods. He presided at the council of Nicene.
The fact that he wasn’t babtized didn’t seem to bother the bishops.
When he supposedly saw the flaming cross in the sky and was told’by this sign you will conquer’ he in effect santioned war for christians…something forbidden by Christ and his apostles.
Constantine DID abolish all Jewish feasts that were being observed by the Church.
He changed the calendar to reflect paganism rather than the Jewish roots of Christianity and taught that the Jews were to become separate from the Church of Rome.
Because the Jews were the foundation of the Gentile beliefs of Christ when these changes came in
the Roman Catholic Church was able to introduce idol worship, rituals, requiring sins to be confessed to priests rather than in personal prayer.
Constantine was the primary tool of the era to transform the foundational beliefs into a “new religion”.
because if it isn’t in the TORAH – then it might be considered “extra” man made traditions-- not christ made ceremonies
S
Slowride
Guest
I am a returning Catholic who was studying to become a protestant pastor. I was taught was the same thing as Catholics. The Church is the “Body of Christ.” What is different is how we perceive the doctrine of who truly makes up the “Body of Christ.” Is it those with a profession of faith ‘alone,’ (an added word by Luther) or those who takes Jesus’ words seriously and workout their salvation with acts of obedience in tantum with faith?
Side bar - just some thoughts:
One big one is confessing sins to a priest for us Cathloics. A Catholic would never believe anyone could be in a ‘right relationship’ with the Body of Christ (church) without this sacrament - as foregoing any of the sacraments.
A question I like to put forth concerning confession is this, what would be the purpose of Jesus giving authority to the apostles to forgive sin, IF it had no purpose? Yes, I believe it has to do with ‘personal relationship.’ And I think we all know what it means to have a personal relationship with Jesus. With that being said, I as a Catholic see a unity between a personal relationship with Jesus and humanity; face-to face flesh and blood, edifying comfort. I believe Jesus knew what we needed to survive as the “Body of Christ.”; Him, and having assurity of forgiveness through confessing to whom Jesus gave authority, provides this - as is with all sacraments.
So, what is the Church - The True Body of Christ.
Side bar - just some thoughts:
One big one is confessing sins to a priest for us Cathloics. A Catholic would never believe anyone could be in a ‘right relationship’ with the Body of Christ (church) without this sacrament - as foregoing any of the sacraments.
A question I like to put forth concerning confession is this, what would be the purpose of Jesus giving authority to the apostles to forgive sin, IF it had no purpose? Yes, I believe it has to do with ‘personal relationship.’ And I think we all know what it means to have a personal relationship with Jesus. With that being said, I as a Catholic see a unity between a personal relationship with Jesus and humanity; face-to face flesh and blood, edifying comfort. I believe Jesus knew what we needed to survive as the “Body of Christ.”; Him, and having assurity of forgiveness through confessing to whom Jesus gave authority, provides this - as is with all sacraments.
So, what is the Church - The True Body of Christ.
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
Oh I see. Well this is a different issue altogether from what I was discussing with the other person. The following link should help you with what you said above
catholic.com/video/did-the-emperor-constantine-found-the-catholic-church
Now also worth pointing out, the Bible itself was put together and made a binding belief as the inerrant word of God around 400 AD i.e. AFTER CONSTANTINE. So if you truly believe what you say did indeed happen, then you should perhaps reject that belief too at which point you are honestly left with nothing.
But the good news is that what you wrote down is a popular myth but far from the truth. For your information, Constantine was NOT a Pope and the Pope at the time was Pope ST. SYLVESTER I.
T
truthseeker32
Guest
I think the linguistic basis of Matthew 16:18 makes it clear that Peter is indeed the rock Christ is referring to, as this article makes abundantly clear:
catholicbridge.com/catholic/pope_peter_rock.php
It seems well established, as the protestant scholar W.F. Albright states, that “To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence.”
I do concede, however, that the questions of apostolic succession and papal supremacy are completely different issues. What Matthew 16:18 does clearly establish that Peter is the rock, it shows his preeminence among the apostles, and shows that he recieved special keys.
catholicbridge.com/catholic/pope_peter_rock.php
It seems well established, as the protestant scholar W.F. Albright states, that “To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence.”
I do concede, however, that the questions of apostolic succession and papal supremacy are completely different issues. What Matthew 16:18 does clearly establish that Peter is the rock, it shows his preeminence among the apostles, and shows that he recieved special keys.
C
Christopher1290
Guest
Its actually a very simple question. The original church of God is the Catholic church, it is the universal church. People try to argue only because they are separated from the church and they want to fill a void they feel inside for leaving the beautiful tradition. Of course, it takes great faith to understand the traditions of the church, but faith has faded in the current age and now everyone feels they have a right to question everything. Gods church wasn’t meant to be questioned for Peter didn’t say if he should go off and do something else, no he accepted what he was given. satan is the one who causes people to question Gods authority. Jesus gave such a beautiful prayer before He was crucified, sadly it was a prayer that many people didn’t fully uphold, He said while praying to the Father in Heaven “Let them(His followers, the Church) be ONE as I and the Father are ONE” And thousands of denominations later here we are today. Of course Christ did say that those who are for us are not against us, He said this when the apostles saw people driving out demons in Jesus name but they were not part of the apostles. So of course, being in Jesus but separated from the Church still makes you a Christian, but there is less protection from evil outside the Church and more room for satan to make you question the authority. Jesus said His church would be ONE and sure enough the Catholic Church is the only one that stays strict to its authority and tradition as was meant to be for without a one true Church there is no real symbol for God because you can’t rely on a bunch of scattered individuals claiming to be Christians to be a sign, no you need a Church and an authority across the world to be a sign. The gates of hell will never prevail, and they never have as the Church has been attacked so viciously by the early schism and later through bad Christians in the middle ages giving the Church somewhat of a bad name the reformers took a shot, now everyone today thinks they are right and everyone else is wrong. What we really need is to undo what satan did in the past and make the Church one by joining all the other groups back, but this doesnt seem likely as all Christians in Jesus who are sincere in their heart have still won the battle regardless. Anyway, the Church upholds the tradition and remained so since the beginning, recent evidence even shows that the early Christians gave all their hearts to the Mass and the Eucharist, there was very strong adoration for it, besides preaching all they did was celebrate Mass. The solution to the problem for the reformers was not to leave the church but find a way to heal things within the church, same goes during the schism, this would have helped prevent some separation, when you disagree with someone it doesn’t mean that the first solution is to run away. Jesus tells us to repair things with our brothers and not rush into condemning others. If anyone reads St. Faustina’s Divine Mercy chaplet, Jesus specifically wanted those to pray for the ones that separated themselves from the church.
U
ufamtobie
Guest
U
ufamtobie
Guest
A
Augustus24
Guest
Hello, thank you for your response.
When they appealed to Rome, they were not asking Rome to define a new doctrine, they were asking Rome to weigh in on a matter of church discipline. That Rome can define a new doctrine unilaterally is new and novel doctrine and should be rejected. Even when Rome did intercede in matters of of Church discipline, often they were roundly ignored, and rejected, as when Pope Anicetus tried to weigh in against Polycarp on the Quartodeciman Controversy and Irenaeus stepped in and told Anicetus to to put it simply butt out. It’s clear from this that neither Polycarp nor Irenaeus regarded Anicetus word as formally binding on all Christians.
The number and list of books in the Bible and their authorship is not a matter of doctrine, ergo it does not have to be explicitly stated in scripture what books should be in scripture, that would be a circular argument. Rather, the church recognized what books were in scripture, although there was much debate about it, and Rome waited to formally define it at Trent, even though some Catholics question certain books canonicity like Cardinal Cajetan and Erasmus. Since the scriptures are the only thing we can be sure was given by God, all doctrine must be normed by scripture, if a doctrine is not normed by scripture or explicitly stated in scripture, it is at best a pious opinion, and not formally binding on all Christians.
I am not willing to stake my eternal soul on what an Apostle or anyone implies, as implications are matters of opinion. I would stick with what the Apostles and writers of scriptures tell us explicitly. Then we can discuss what the implications are, but those implications are not formally binding on all Christians throughout eternity, otherwise they would have written it explicitly.
I agree, and we protestants owe a debt of gratitude to the Roman Church for transcribing the scriptures over the centuries. But Rome has indeed added extra biblical doctrine over the centuries. For example, no apostle or anyone in the early church taught that Mary was conceived without sin, that doctrine took centuries to develop and was unknown to the Apostles. At best the doctrine is pious opinion and not binding on all Christians.
I disagree, respectfully of course. Rome has added many doctrines that were unknown to the Apostles and the early Church, such as that the Pope has complete jurisdiction over all churches and has the right to declare doctrine and is infallible in matters of faith and morals, that Mary was conceived without original sin, that Mary was assumed into heaven, I could go on. But the point is that these doctrines are new and novel, that’s why the Apostles and the early church did not bother mentioning them.
U
ufamtobie
Guest
C
Christopher1290
Guest
@Augustus24
About the teachings on Mary, first of all these teachings are much older than the reformed churches and existed and were understood by many way before the reformation ever happened. Some early Christians do teach about Mary I suggest you read and study Mariology to see where the teachings came from. It wasn’t mentioned directly in the new testament but it was mentioned various times indirectly. Not to mention there just is alot of common sense on this issue. Mary had to be born without sin if she was to give birth to God Incarnate Jesus. Jesus was both human and divine His divine nature came from the Holy Spirit of course, but His human side was human in every way except for sin. Since everyone born under Eve has original sin everyone inherits it. But, in order for God to be born of a women and not inherit sin, the mother has to be sin free thus her Immaculate conception therefore Jesus couldn’t inherit the original sin being born of a mother who didn’t have original sin.
The assumption then comes from being removed from original sin therefore not escaping pain, suffering and death but given the grace to be assumed into heaven after, both body and soul. Mary was full of grace indeed, much more than any other saint, as the angel said in greeting her, she accepted without question, she had very strong faith. This grace and absence of original sin made her able to stay away from sin for the rest of her life.
Genesis talks about Mary and her victory through her son Jesus in finally defeating evil. Jesus death and resurrection crushed the devil. She is the second eve that is spotless from sin unlike the first eve who gave into temptation to sin, just as the first adam brought death upon us, the second adam who is Christ gave us life. Also, the ark of the covenant is a spotless creation from God to carry the mana or bread of life, and Mary is the spotless new ark to carry the new mana or bread of life that is Christ for us, whom we eat His body and drink His blood at every communion to keep His life and grace within us. Mary is part of our family, a true mother in heaven for all of God’s children.
About the teachings on Mary, first of all these teachings are much older than the reformed churches and existed and were understood by many way before the reformation ever happened. Some early Christians do teach about Mary I suggest you read and study Mariology to see where the teachings came from. It wasn’t mentioned directly in the new testament but it was mentioned various times indirectly. Not to mention there just is alot of common sense on this issue. Mary had to be born without sin if she was to give birth to God Incarnate Jesus. Jesus was both human and divine His divine nature came from the Holy Spirit of course, but His human side was human in every way except for sin. Since everyone born under Eve has original sin everyone inherits it. But, in order for God to be born of a women and not inherit sin, the mother has to be sin free thus her Immaculate conception therefore Jesus couldn’t inherit the original sin being born of a mother who didn’t have original sin.
The assumption then comes from being removed from original sin therefore not escaping pain, suffering and death but given the grace to be assumed into heaven after, both body and soul. Mary was full of grace indeed, much more than any other saint, as the angel said in greeting her, she accepted without question, she had very strong faith. This grace and absence of original sin made her able to stay away from sin for the rest of her life.
Genesis talks about Mary and her victory through her son Jesus in finally defeating evil. Jesus death and resurrection crushed the devil. She is the second eve that is spotless from sin unlike the first eve who gave into temptation to sin, just as the first adam brought death upon us, the second adam who is Christ gave us life. Also, the ark of the covenant is a spotless creation from God to carry the mana or bread of life, and Mary is the spotless new ark to carry the new mana or bread of life that is Christ for us, whom we eat His body and drink His blood at every communion to keep His life and grace within us. Mary is part of our family, a true mother in heaven for all of God’s children.
D
Doxiemom
Guest
Jesus was building His foundation upon a solid ground, a rock, for the body of believers called the church . He knew that this man, now Peter, would be the guy who would preach on pentacost and convert thousands to what we now call Christianity. It was the day His church was birthed.
Where is it today? Everywhere. In various forms, but central is Christ. Thanks to modern technology, The Good News is being told to all the world and then the End of the Age shall come. We are very close.
To the non-christian world, Rome is the picture for this religion called Christianity. The many different denominations are lost in the grander scheme.
U
ufamtobie
Guest
Here you are speaking of human divisions, which are sin. Is anyone willing to say that the Spirit will not be with sinners? If not, then we must be willing to admit that the Spirit guides His Church, even though divided.
JohnNC, we are all sinners, thats why Jesus Left the Sacrament of Confession, we must not wallow in our sins, if we do, the Holy Spirit is not in you, but outside of you trying to get in, for the Spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. Yes, the Spirit guides the Church this is the reason why the gates of hell shall not prevail over it. In oder to have the Holy Spirit dwelling in us we must be in the State of Grace. If one is divided from This Church, Scaryespecially if he knows it, but still want to wallow in his sins and be disobedient to it.
- Status