G
gabriel22a
Guest
How are you applying this to Janet’s post?
- Status
2
2equals1
Guest
Nice chatting with you all.
2equals1
2equals1
G
gabriel22a
Guest
You, too. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. It was nice to hear that my Bible college experience wasn’t an isolated experience. And my conclusions regarding Catholicism coincided with your husband’s at that time. No teaching about it–just a vague understanding that they were Christians who worshipped differently.Nice chatting with you all.
2equals1
B
Brian777
Guest
neither side constitutes dissidence? according to the Church’s infallible teaching and to Christ’s own words in Holy Scripture, to say that one is saved outside of Holy Mother Church is heresy, aka dissidence to the Truth. There, thats the Truth pure and simple, and from God himself as revealed in Scripture and through the Holy Ghost by his Magisterium in the Church. The End.
P
PJM
Guest
Please reread Mt. 16:15-19 outloud to you’re self. What did you hear? Note all the single tense words!
Petrine Proofs
“When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?’ He said to him, ‘Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.’ He said to him, ‘Feed my lambs.’ A second time he said to him, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me?’ He said to him, ‘Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.’ He said to him, ‘Tend my sheep.’ He said to him the third time, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me?’ Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time; ‘Do you love me?’ And he said to him,’ Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Feed my sheep. ” Jn: 21: 15- 17
Mt: 16:18: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church; and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”
The rock (Greek, petra) referred to here is St. Peter himself, not his faith or Jesus Christ. Christ appears here not as the foundation, but as the architect who “builds.” The Church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors - living men (see, e.g., 1 Pet 2:5. Today, the overwhelming consensus of the great majority of all-biblical scholars and commentators is in favor of the traditional Catholic understanding. Here St. Peter is spoken of as the foundation-stone of the Church, making him head and superior of the family of God (i.e., the seed of the doctrine of the papacy).
**Mt. 16:19 **“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .”
The “power of the keys” has to do with ecclesiastical discipline and administrative authority with regard to the requirements of the faith, as in Isaiah . From this power flows the use of censures, excommunication, absolution, baptismal discipline, the imposition of penances, and legislative powers
Mt: 16:19 “.whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
“Binding” and “loosing” were technical rabbinical terms, which meant to “forbid” and “permit” with reference to the interpretation of the law, and secondarily to “condemn” or “place under the ban” or “acquit.” Thus, St. Peter and the popes are given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life, by virtue of revelation and the Spirit’s leading , and to demand obedience from the Church. “Binding and loosing” represent the legislative and judicial powers of the papacy and the bishops St. Peter, however, is the only apostle who receives these powers by name and in the singular, making him preeminent.
Peter’s name occurs first in all lists of apostles. Matthew even calls him the “first”. Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.
Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after Himself Jn 21:15-17, singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role
Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his “faith may not fail” Lk 22:32.
Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to “strengthen your brethren” Lk 22:32.
Peter first confesses Christ’s divinity Mt 16:16.
Peter is regarded by the Jews Acts 4:1-13 as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.
Peter is specified by an angel as the leader ** Mk 16:7.**
Peter’s words are the first recorded and most important in the upper room before Pentecost Acts 1:15-22.
Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas Acts 1:22.
Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to “preach the gospel” in the Church era Acts 2:14-36
Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man Acts 3:6-12
Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God Acts 5:2-11
Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead Acts 9:40.
Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God Acts 10:9-48.
Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church Acts 11:5-17.
Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Acts 12:1-17.
Peter presides over and opens the first Council of Christianity, and lays down principles afterwards accepted by it Acts 15:7-11.
Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus Acts 8:14-24.
Peter’s name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times(162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon, and 6 as Cephas). John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50% of the time we find John in the Bible! Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. **If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60% of the time any disciple is referred to! **
Peter’s proclamation at Pentecost Acts 2:14 contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the “House of Israel” - an example of “binding and loosing.”
Peter commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized Acts 10:44-48.
Peter corrects those who misuse Paul’s writings 2 Pet 3:15-1.
Love and prayers,
G
gabriel22a
Guest
The difference between your understanding of the Church’s infallible teaching and the current Catholic teaching in the CCC has been discussed much on this thread. My comment about dissidence was to stop the argument over who is right. You believe what you do regarding salvation of separated brethren (did you read 817-819?) and I believe the current Catechism.
Since you said this has been rehashed too many times, why do you jump into the middle of a thread and say what has already been said? Please don’t take offense, I just wonder if you have taken the time to thoughtfully read the thread so that you know what I mean when I say dissidence. It was a reference to an article on another post. It was a good article that encouraged acceptance that Catholics disagree on this subject, but that neither side should accuse the other of being heretical, dissident, whatever.
Your choice to agree or disagree, but there it is.
B
Brian777
Guest
one catholic cannot disagree with another catholic on the infallible salvation dogma without one of them being in heresy. the whole idea of infallible dogma kind of stikes that possibilty down.
but yes i have read the catechism, and it says that (this is a slight paraphrase) “hence they cannot be saved, who knowing that the catholic Church was founded by God through Jesus Christ…would refuse either to enter into [Her] or remain in [Her]”
now it does allow for the salvation of those in “invincible ignorance,” however most protestants cannot consider themselves in such ignorance of the basics of the Catholic faith, especially if they have catholic friends and family. That being said we must remember that we are not given any authority to judge who is or isn’t in invincible ignorance, but we must remmebr that those who seem as if they are may no enough to actually not be, and vice versa.
again simple truth. thats all i was trying to say.
J
Janet1983
Guest
Jesus gave Peter a ministry. That does not reflect on the Pontifex Maximus however.
When we look at the Greek of Matthew 16:18 we see something that is not obvious in the English. “…thou art Peter (πέτρος, petros) and upon this rock (πέτρα, petra) I will build my church…” In Greek nouns have gender. It is similar to the English words actor and actress. The first is masculine and the second is feminine. Likewise, the Greek word “petros” is masculine; “petra” is feminine. Peter, the man, is appropriately referred to as Petros. But Jesus said that the rock he would build his church on was not the masculine “petros” but the feminine “petra.” Let me illustrate by using the words “actor” and “actress”: “You are the actor and with this actress I will make my movie.” Do see that the gender influences how a sentence is understood? Jesus was not saying that the church will be built upon Peter, but upon something else. What, then, does petra, the feminine noun, refer to?
The feminine “petra” occurs four times in the Greek New Testament:
Matt. 16:18, “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
Matt. 27:60, “And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock (petra): and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.”
1 Cor. 10:4, “And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock (petras) that followed them: and that Rock (petra) was Christ.”
1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is “And a stone of stumbling, and a rock (petra) of offence”; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."
We can clearly see that in the three other uses of the Greek word petra (nominative singular; “petras” in 1 Cor. 10:4 is genitive singular) we find it referred to as a large immovable mass of rock in which a tomb is carved out (Matt. 27:60) and in reference to Christ (1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Pet. 2:8). Note that Peter himself in the last verse referred to petra as being Jesus! If Peter uses the word as a reference to Jesus, then shouldn’t we?
In addition, Greek dictionaries and lexicons give us further insight into the two Greek words under discussion:
Source: Liddell, H. (1996). A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English lexicon (636). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
Petros: “πέτρος, a stone, distinguished from πέτρα
Petra: πέτρα , Ion. and Ep. πέτρη, , a rock, a ledge or shelf of rock, Od. 2. a rock, i.e. a rocky peak or ridge…Properly, πέτρα is a fixed rock, πέτρος a stone.”
Source: Vine, W., & Bruce, F. (1981; Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996). Vine’s Expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words (2:302). Old Tappan NJ: Revell.
PETRA πέτρα , (4073)) denotes a mass of rock, as distinct from petros, a detached stone or boulder, or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved.
A stone is movable, unstable and this is exactly what we see with Peter, who doubted when he walked on water, who denied Jesus, and who was rebuked by Paul at Antioch.
Matt. 14:29-30, “And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus. But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.”
Luke 22:57-58, “And he denied him, saying, Woman, I know him not. And after a little while another saw him, and said, Thou art also of them. And Peter said, Man, I am not.”
Gal. 2:11,14 “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”
Jesus, who knew the heart of Peter, was not saying that Peter, the movable stone, would be the immovable rock upon which the Church would be built. Rather, it would be built upon Jesus and it was this truth that Peter had affirmed what he said to Jesus, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16). This is consistent with scripture elsewhere where the term rock is sometimes used in reference of God, but never of a man.
Deut. 32:3, “He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.”
Psalm 18:2, “The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower.”
Psalm 18:31, “For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God?”
Rom. 9:33, “As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.”
It should be obvious from the Word of God that the rock Jesus was referring to was not Peter, but himself.
P
PJM
Guest
***You are correct about the gender sensitive noun, “Peter”.
Here is Youngs [non]catholic] "Literal Translation of the Greek text which has wide acceptance as authoritive.
" 18`And I also say to thee, that thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my assembly, and gates of Hades shall not prevail against it; "***
Further evidence: The singluar tense words of Jesus I, My, church, rock, you [Peter]
Also how do you then explain giving Peter “the keys to the kingdom of heaven?”
AND "What ever you [singular] loose, what ever you [singular bind] shall likewise be done in heaven?
Jesus knew Peter was male, not female, and there is no reason for him to have reffered to Peter in female gender [other than to support your case
.Jesus spoke in Aramaic and the only translation for “Peter” is ROCK.
***John Ch. 1: 42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter )". *
Did the Apostles know what Jesus meant? Definetly!
***Matthew 16:19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .”
The “power of the keys” has to do with ecclesiastical discipline and administrative authority with regard to the requirements of the faith, as in Isaiah 22:22 (cf. Is 9:6; Job 12:14; Rev 3:7). From this power flows the use of censures, excommunication, absolution, baptismal discipline, the imposition of penances, and legislative powers. In the Old Testament a steward, or prime minister is a man who is “over a house”
Mt: 16:19 " whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
“Binding” and “loosing” were technical rabbinical terms, which meant to “forbid” and “permit” with reference to the interpretation of the law, and secondarily to “condemn” or “place under the ban” or “acquit.” Thus, St. Peter and the popes are given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life, by virtue of revelation and the Spirit’s leading (Jn 16:13), and to demand obedience from the Church. “Binding and loosing” represent the legislative and judicial powers of the papacy and the bishops (Mt 18:17-18; Jn 20:23). St. Peter, however, is the only apostle who receives these powers by name and in the singular, making him preeminent.
Peter’s name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him the “first” (10:2).
Peter alone among the apostles receives a new name, “Rock,” solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42: Mt 16:18).
Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after Himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:2).
Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his “faith may not fail” (Lk 22:32).
Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to “strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22:32)***
And I could share a GREAT DEAL MORE
Love and prayers friend
J
Janet1983
Guest
That is so not making sense… The English language does not discern between a female noun and a male noun… It does not matter which translation you choose, because as long as it it in English there will be no difference.
The NT was written in Greek and in Greek there is a difference as is in Latin:
“18 Et ego dico tibi: Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam; et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam.” (vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-matthaeum_lt.html#16)
F
fireproofpoodle
Guest
My personal theory on this is that “Invincible Ignorance” constitutes, when mentioned in relation to faith, something which has either not been revealed by the Spirit to someone or something that the person has failed to deduce from the Spirit’s revelation to them. Therefore the person who is aware of the divinity of Christ and the efficacy of his sacrifice on the cross, who believes and tries to live a Christian life can be saved without being Catholic, as the truth of the Catholic church has not been revealed to them. If you will, there are varying degrees of beatific vision, Catholics having recieved the highest degree. So long as the Protestant remains ingorant of the biblical truth of the Church and does not act to destroy it (www.jesus-is-saviour.com (good title but the rest is trash) i don’t see a problem. All Christianity has Catholic roots. Perhaps one will be “sufficiently Catholic” to be saved.
That’s just my theory. Feel free to rebuke me.
Robert.
That’s just my theory. Feel free to rebuke me.
Robert.
G
gabriel22a
Guest
I think you have succinctly summarized the Catechism’s teaching on this. The points in your summation have been rebuked many times on this thread, but your well grounded “theory” provides a further explanation that I’m glad you took time to share.My personal theory on this is that “Invincible Ignorance” constitutes, when mentioned in relation to faith, something which has either not been revealed by the Spirit to someone or something that the person has failed to deduce from the Spirit’s revelation to them. Therefore the person who is aware of the divinity of Christ and the efficacy of his sacrifice on the cross, who believes and tries to live a Christian life can be saved without being Catholic, as the truth of the Catholic church has not been revealed to them. If you will, there are varying degrees of beatific vision, Catholics having recieved the highest degree. So long as the Protestant remains ingorant of the biblical truth of the Church and does not act to destroy it (www.jesus-is-saviour.com (good title but the rest is trash) i don’t see a problem. All Christianity has Catholic roots. Perhaps one will be “sufficiently Catholic” to be saved.
That’s just my theory. Feel free to rebuke me.
Robert.
A
AnneElliot
Guest
I am dismayed in reading this thread…
Regarding “ignorance”…
To be invincibly ignorant is incredibly difficult. For everyone so quick to bring up the hypothetical “invincibly ignorant” human person, I wonder there’s never a concrete example? Furthermore (and most importantly), ignorance is not salvific. The Gospels declare the saving power of Christ, not the saving power of ignorance of Him. Ignorance will not save anyone. Does this mean that I believe that ignorant people will be damned for what they do not know? Of course NOT. But neither will their ignorance merit salvation.
Original Sin is enough to be excluded from the Beatific Vision.
This is the importance of the missions and evagelization! It is most urgent and most necessary for missionaries to travel the world and for Catholics live out and defend and share their faith with others… to bring them to the Church, to the saving graces found in the Sacraments, etc.
It does a grave disservice to the Church and to Christ to downplay and belittle the Sacraments by pretending that ignorance could grant Salvation.
Out of the Church there is no Salvation.
Regarding “ignorance”…
To be invincibly ignorant is incredibly difficult. For everyone so quick to bring up the hypothetical “invincibly ignorant” human person, I wonder there’s never a concrete example? Furthermore (and most importantly), ignorance is not salvific. The Gospels declare the saving power of Christ, not the saving power of ignorance of Him. Ignorance will not save anyone. Does this mean that I believe that ignorant people will be damned for what they do not know? Of course NOT. But neither will their ignorance merit salvation.
Original Sin is enough to be excluded from the Beatific Vision.
This is the importance of the missions and evagelization! It is most urgent and most necessary for missionaries to travel the world and for Catholics live out and defend and share their faith with others… to bring them to the Church, to the saving graces found in the Sacraments, etc.
It does a grave disservice to the Church and to Christ to downplay and belittle the Sacraments by pretending that ignorance could grant Salvation.
Out of the Church there is no Salvation.
J
Janet1983
Guest
Apart from Jesus Christ there is no salvation… Sacraments btw are not as important as some make them out to be.
A
AnneElliot
Guest
And Jesus Christ is found in His Church, and His graces in the Sacraments His Church celebrates.
The Sacraments are extremely important, especially the Sacrament of Baptism, as the Sacred Scriptures attest.
J
Janet1983
Guest
Baptism is an ordinance…
G
gabriel22a
Guest
This thread has disturbed me, too. To the point of spending a lot of time researching the differing views on the subject. But it has been good for me!
I agree that missions and evangelization are urgently needed. But ignorance of the teachings of the Catholic Church does not equal ignorance of the need of Christ for salvation. Which is the reason for, and I hate to repeat myself, CCC 817-819. It very specifically addresses it.
What do you mean that those who are ignorant are not damned, but neither does their ignorance merit salvation? Besides the fact that no one merits salvation, what is the middle ground between damned and saved? Do you mean that those who are counting on ignorance for salvation are damned? If that’s what you mean I certainly agree.
We need to reach out to Protestants–as “brothers in Christ.” They need to have access to the sacraments and the joy of living the faith as Christ intended. But “outside the Church” in context means outside of Christ, as the CCC very clearly states in its section on separated brethren. And “separated brethren” aka Protestants are who we are talking about. Protestants cannot be saved outside of Christ, and neither are they condemned by the “children of the Catholic Church” for living a life of faith in Christ to the best of their abilities.
T
TristanCross
Guest
I believe this thread has been alive way too long.
G
gabriel22a
Guest
And apparently rehashed many times on this forum:shrug: But it has helped–even though it was your question that sparked it and I can’t thank you enough for starting it. It has helped me a lot.I believe this thread has been alive way too long.
As for its length…who knows?
A
AnneElliot
Guest
I was not referring to Protestants when speaking of invincible ignorance.
Though, the reference (if you have the Companion to the Catechism of the Catholic Church) for paragraph 817 is Canon 751 which reads, “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”
And if you read further into the documents of the Second Vatican Council also referenced to the CCC 817-819 it reads, “Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life-that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is “the all-embracing means of salvation,” that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God.” (Unitatis redintegratio, 3) [my emphasis]
I mean that they are not damned for the sin of heresy/apostasy/etc. They are not held culpable for sinning against the faith. They are culpable for sins against natural law (murder, lying, stealing, etc.), which, without the grace of Christ cannot be forgiven.
There is no middle ground, you misunderstood me.
No that’s not what I meant; but, those aware of ignorance are not ignorant so they could not count on it.Do you mean that those who are counting on ignorance for salvation are damned? If that’s what you mean I certainly agree.
The dogma (which is meant as it says) is that there is no salvation out of the Church. See the references I mentioned above. The Second Vatican Council did not intend to say that Protestants could be saved as Protestants.
- Status