Catholics Don't Understand Church History

[mcq72]

Can you prove that?

John 6:64, or thereabouts.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

It just says Jesus knew who didn’t believe and He also knew who would betray Him.

Doesn’t imply Judas never believed, which is eigesis on your part.

 

[Gorgias]

Kindly disagree to the apparent separation of the two. Which are really intertwined.

Interesting!

So… ‘authority’ over the Church is conflatable with ‘ministry’? So… a reader of Scripture during liturgies has ‘authority’ over the Church? One who distributes the Eucharist to the homebound gets to decide on his own where and how and in what manner he performs his ministry? I think the lady doth protest overmuch…

The CC often uses the first use of keys even binding loosing, even forgiveness of sins

No. You keep making the “forgiveness of sins” claim, and keep hearing Catholics object… and do not provide substantiation for that claim. (Looking at a subsequent turn in the discussion, in Mt 18, into another subject, doesn’t prove your point.). And, to your claim: yes! It’s Peter who exercises the authority of the keys on Pentecost! You’ve got it! Huzzah!

No but it can make you a good referee.

Thank you. That’s the perfect response. OK – let’s follow it up: “I have an NFL rulebook. I’ve read it, and have interpreted it on my own. I bought myself a spiffy cap and a striped shirt. Therefore, I am an NFL referee.” You know how close that would get you to the field on a game day? No closer than the areas that the other fans can access.

It is not new doctrine.

It is. The notions that salvation is by faith alone, and that Scripture alone is the sole authority, and that there is no permanent priestly ministry… are all innovations of the Reformers.

And some variances are merely products of free thought, and not binding on salvation.

Again: “in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, freedom; in all things, charity”… is a novel approach first asserted by the Reformers. You won’t find Christians in the first 1500 years of the Church saying “well… we can think freely on matters that we declare ‘not binding on salvation’!”

 

[mcq72]

It just says Jesus knew who didn’t believe and He also knew who would betray Him.

Doesn’t imply Judas never believed, which is eigesis on your part.

I thought it said He knew who didn’t believe from the beginning.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Julius_Caesar:

It just says Jesus knew who didn’t believe and He also knew who would betray Him.

Doesn’t imply Judas never believed, which is eigesis on your part.

I thought it said He knew who didn’t believe from the beginning.

And where does it say Judas at first didn’t believe?

Again eigesis.

 

[mcq72]

So… ‘authority’ over the Church is conflatable with ‘ministry

Intertwined yes. You want to be great, serve. Jesus then washed the apostles feet. Authority serving.

So… a reader of Scripture during liturgies has ‘authority’ over the Church? One who distributes the Eucharist to the homebound gets to decide on his own where and how and in what manner he performs his ministry?

Strawman? I said “souls are being saved and nourished” in a community alleged not to have the keys to the kingdom already being esrablished. You described deacon ministry, which is subtext to the larger picture in the former.

It’s Peter who exercises the authority of the keys on Pentecost! You’ve got it! Huzzah!

No. You keep making the “forgiveness of sins” claim, and keep hearing Catholics object

Were sins authoritatively forgiven, even loosed, on Pentecost not an exercise of the keys?

I have an NFL rulebook. I’ve read it, and have interpreted it on my own.

Again strawman. I posted:

“The church down the street uses the same Scriptures and tradition and history and Spirit that leads unto life”

Where do you get one only reads and understands the rulebook on their own? Tradition and History and the Spirit are what, strawmanned out, cherry picked past?

The notions that salvation is by faith alone, and that Scripture alone is the sole authority, and that there is no permanent priestly ministry… are all innovations of the Reformers.

Your partly misunderstand a few of those, and partly are on my next sentence you commented on . Is there much difference between prima scriptura and sola scriptura salvifically?

You won’t find Christians in the first 1500 years of the Church saying “well… we can think freely on matters that we declare ‘not binding on salvation’!

I kindly disagree. In my opinion that is exactly what happened. There was freedom of thought on a few things until there was definitive doctrinal decree, such as the IC.

 

[mcq72]

And where does it say Judas at first didn’t believe ?

Again eigesis.

Perhaps.

"But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
John 6:64 KJV

“Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,”
John 2:23‭-‬24

Did Jesus mean He knew exactly when someone begins to disbelieve, or when someone didn’t really believe from the begining of their following?

Is it eisegesis to say Judas did not believe from the beginning, or to say Judas believed then disbelieved later?

But thank you, I do not want to read into to the text inaccurately.

By the way, I suppose we would have to qualify believe, for all believed sonething about Jesus. I take it that Jesus meant proper belief, such as explicitly stated by Peter at end of said discourse of ch 6., or certainly not a belief that would discount or be an obstacle to such.

 

[Montrose]

Is there much difference between prima scriptura and sola scriptura salvifically?

Why I'm Catholic: The Foundational Error of Sola Scriptura | Catholic Answers Magazine

 

[Julius_Caesar]

By the way, I suppose we would have to qualify believe, for all believed sonething about Jesus. I take it that Jesus meant proper belief, such as explicitly stated by Peter at end of said discourse

If you’re talking about proper belief, Jesus knew Peter didn’t have this either. Matthew 16 shows it.

 

[mcq72]

If you’re talking about proper belief, Jesus knew Peter didn’t have this either. Matthew 16 shows it.

Well I qualified such belief with this:

“or certainly not a belief that would discount or be an obstacle to such.”

I was trying to show one have foundational belief, leaving room for growth or adjustment, which a disciple will have to do.

While Peter did not understand and even argued and later cut off an ear to avoid the Cross, he still believed Jesus was Son of the living God. He was drawn by the Father, and not just by the miracles, or bread, or as a zealot

 

[Julius_Caesar]

While Peter did not understand and even argued and later cut off an ear to avoid the Cross, he still believed Jesus was Son of the living God.

So did the others and so did Judas.
As the walking on water incident showed.

 

[mcq72]

So did the others and so did Judas.
As the walking on water incident showed.

Did they ( non apostolic disciples, and Judas?) really believe Jesus had the words of eternal life, or did they believe they already had eternal life because they were Jewish, and only now needed the earthly kingdom restored?

I believe one also has to differentiate between the apostles and other disciples that came after, as the apostles are also known as disciples.

 

[mcq72]

mcq72:

Is there much difference between prima scriptura and sola scriptura salvifically?

Catholic Answers

Why I’m Catholic: The Foundational Error of Sola Scriptura​

One the great church

I think article starts out ok but then argues from its own strawman misrepresentation with this:

"the idea that no authoritative Church existed and that no authoritative Church was needed. The Bible—nothing more, nothing less, and nothing else—was seen to be all that is necessary for faith and practice.

This is the foundation of the Protestant worldview."

Last I heard the Lutherans have an authoritative church, have not jettisoned tradition, or church councils or history, all the things Catholics have (save a pope).

 

[I-47]

When you are already a Catholic, your faith doesn’t depend on the weaknesses of other Catholics, but on deep relationship with Christ. If their weaknesses already made you lose the Catholic faith, how much more would you have sunken if temptation, evil desires, and other evil things strike you?

There are many things to enjoy and defend in the Catholic faith, rather than focusing on what the others Catholic “lack of”. Perhaps, after achieving the true humility, you might even forget all of those weaknesses or things you don’t like in the Catholic faith.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Did they ( non apostolic disciples, and Judas?) really believe Jesus had the words of eternal life,

Did they or not worship Jesus in the boat and say, “Truly You are the Son of God?”

 

[Gorgias]

Intertwined yes. You want to be great, serve. Jesus then washed the apostles feet. Authority serving.

Ahh, but ‘ministry’ – in a sense, ‘service’ – doesn’t imply authority. You’ve got it backwards; rather, the message is that those in authority must minister and serve.

Strawman?

Yep. You’re asserting that the keys are present wherever the Spirit works among us. Can you substantiate that claim? If you could, it would go a long way in legitimizing the claims of the Reformation.

You described deacon ministry, which is subtext to the larger picture in the former.

That’s a coincidence; I wasn’t attempting to do so.

However, it’s a great point – from whom does diaconate ministry proceed? (Apostolic authority.) Where does it operate? (In the Church.)

Were sins authoritatively forgiven, even loosed, on Pentecost not an exercise of the keys?

No. You’re talking about “forgiveness of sin” in the context of baptism, which Christ commanded His apostles to perform. That isn’t “keys”, it’s ministry.

“The church down the street uses the same Scriptures and tradition and history and Spirit that leads unto life”

Nah. No strawman.

Tradition and History and the Spirit are what, strawmanned out, cherry picked past?

Nope. The whole point of the Reformation was to split from the tradition of the Church and to create one’s own history apart from the Church. Does the Spirit operate, even outside of the boundaries of the visible Church? Of course. Does it operate there because of Luther, or because of the Catholic Church? The latter.

Your partly misunderstand a few of those

Says you, but nevertheless, the point still holds: they were innovations by those who left the Church and formed an ecclesial body unto themselves.

Is there much difference between prima scriptura and sola scriptura salvifically?

Inasmuch as neither are correct? No. There is no difference in respect to the fact that both are mistaken notions.

 

[Gorgias]

I kindly disagree. In my opinion that is exactly what happened.

Let’s be honest: from the very beginning, folks attempted to do precisely this. They were corrected by the apostles. Those who accepted this correction remained part of the Church; those who did not, left the Church. That dynamic has been with us for 2000 years, and I’m sure it will continue on.

There was freedom of thought on a few things until there was definitive doctrinal decree, such as the IC.

I think I’d say that, in the absence of definitive decrees, there were not councils until mistaken ideas were being propagated widely among the faithful. At these points, councils were called to provide correction.

Last I heard the Lutherans have an authoritative church, have not jettisoned tradition, or church councils or history, all the things Catholics have (save a pope).

So… how then does one justify the right to leave a church and found a novel one? On what authority does one pick and choose which traditions to keep and which to jettison? “Church councils”? Do they hold to the councils of Trent and later?

I’m afraid your logic is flawed, and your perspective ignores the places where the argument falls apart.

 

[mcq72]

Did they or not worship Jesus in the boat and say, “Truly You are the Son of God?”

Were non apostle disciples on board?

 

[mcq72]

Ahh, but ‘ministry’ – in a sense, ‘service’ – doesn’t imply authority. You’ve got it backwards; rather, the message is that those in authority must minister and serve.

I would add he wants to be the greatest, let him be as the least and serve

 

[mcq72]

Yep. You’re asserting that the keys are present wherever the Spirit works among us. Can you substantiate that claim?

Well. will the Spirit work in a salvific and nourishing way contrary to what Peter and the apostles laid down by their offices, even a Petrine one?

No. You’re talking about “forgiveness of sin” in the context of baptism, which Christ commanded His apostles to perform. That isn’t “keys”, it’s ministry

Strongly disagree if you are saying Pentecost did not see Peter’s use of keys a first, and yes to minister authoritatively…

Cant seperate ministry and authority. Like saying a cop can arrest me for breaking the law which is only a use of authority, and not a service to the public.