Doesn't your relationship with God matter more than your denomination?

[Duane1966]

The Ebionites were wrong. They rejected the apostles and the elders and the consensus of the church. They wrongly interpreted God’s vision to Peter about the gentiles gentiles , and wrongly interpreted God’s actions in baptizing gentiles , exactly as he did Jews, as witnessed by Peter and Cornelius and as witnessed by the apostle Paul. They wrongly interpreted writ as mentioned during the council.

Why were they wrong, if they believed they were interpreting the Scriptures right? It is not enough to say they were wrong because they interpreted the Scriptures wrong, because they truly believed they were interpreting the Scriptures right.

Ben, what is the principled difference between them and the Reformers? Both believe they interpreted Scripture right. The Ebionites rejected the Apostles, and the consensus of the Church. The Reformers rejected the successors of the Apostles, and the consensus of the Church. You seem to be saying it was okay for the Reformers to follow their consciences, but not the Ebionites to follow theirs, because I, Ben, agree with the Reformers, but not the Ebionites.

 

[TC3033]

**For me, going to a non-Catholic service is terribly unfulfilling. To me it’s like going to a restaurant and paying for a good meal, only to find that every plate is empty. **Without the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist the experience is largely devoid of spiritual benefit.

As one who spent over 30 years among them and away from the church I was amazed at the freedom and depth of relationship I have in Christ now upon my return. In retrospect those were empty years that gave me nothing I couldn’t have been better fed by being a faithful Catholic.

All music and other peripherals are less important to me than the Mass and the homily and I am actively engaged in it from beginning to end.

Catholicism is not a denomination…it is the original, New Testament, “full Gospel” Christian faith.

I think St. Augustine said it best. “All heretics wish to be styled Catholic, yet if anyone asks them where is the Catholic place of worship none would venture to point out his own.”

Huh, that’s exactly how I feel after going to Mass with my Catholic family

I find myself more spiritually fulfilled after going to my church, where I’m fully accepted rather than going to Mass with my family where I’m seen as a pariah. I just walk away from it empty.

 

[benhur]

Why were they wrong, if they believed they were interpreting the Scriptures right? It is not enough to say they were wrong because they interpreted the Scriptures wrong, because they truly believed they were interpreting the Scriptures right.

Ben, what is the principled difference between them and the Reformers? Both believe they interpreted Scripture right. The Ebionites rejected the Apostles, and the consensus of the Church. The Reformers rejected the successors of the Apostles, and the consensus of the Church. You seem to be saying it was okay for the Reformers to follow their consciences, but not the Ebionites to follow theirs, because I, Ben, agree with the Reformers, but not the Ebionites.

Hi D,

Yes pretty much, just as you agree with Cc…actually it was ok for them to follow their conscience. Just that consciences were wrong.

Again, it matters not the dynamics of ebionites and P’s…for it is mute point compared to the CC dynamic that all others can only be wrong when contending a point of difference with CC

 

[benhur]

Hi D,

Yes pretty much, just as you agree with Cc…actually it was ok for them to follow their conscience. Just that consciences were wrong.

Again, it matters not the dynamics of ebionites and P’s…for it is mute point compared to the CC dynamic that all others can only be wrong when contending a point of difference with CC

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Huh, that’s exactly how I feel after going to Mass with my Catholic family

I find myself more spiritually fulfilled after going to my church, where I’m fully accepted rather than going to Mass with my family where I’m seen as a pariah. I just walk away from it empty.

Hello TC. I’m sorry that your experience has not been positive. I’m sorry to butt in here, but I have to ask:

How are you treated as a pariah? And why do you think you are treated as a pariah? What is it about you that is accepted at your Protestant church, but not accepted at the Catholic church you attend with your family. I would like to know so I can address the problem constructively.

See, I’ve known families with non-Catholic members that attend my parish and feel very welcome. Others not so much. But in one case I know of a Protestant husband who has attended mass with his Catholic wife for regularly for decades and loves our parish. He regularly volunteers at the church, gives financially to the parish, etc. He evidently does not feel like a pariah. Certainly he has his personal objections to Catholicism, but he is welcomed to praise and worship God with Catholics to the extent that he can. What do you think is the difference between his experience and yours? I would like to see more of this type of experience and less of yours.

I think our relationship with Christ is to a large extent the relationship we have with others. If we Catholics as a parish, or a church, are not welcoming the strangers who come to our place of worship, we should be aware of, and working to fix that part of our call to bring Christ to others.

Peace,
Robert

 

[TC3033]

Hello TC. I’m sorry that your experience has not been positive. I’m sorry to butt in here, but I have to ask:

How are you treated as a pariah? And why do you think you are treated as a pariah? What is it about you that is accepted at your Protestant church, but not accepted at the Catholic church you attend with your family. I would like to know so I can address the problem constructively.

See, I’ve known families with non-Catholic members that attend my parish and feel very welcome. Others not so much. But in one case I know of a Protestant husband who has attended mass with his Catholic wife for regularly for decades and loves our parish. He regularly volunteers at the church, gives financially to the parish, etc. He evidently does not feel like a pariah. Certainly he has his personal objections to Catholicism, but he is welcomed to praise and worship God with Catholics to the extent that he can. What do you think is the difference between his experience and yours? I would like to see more of this type of experience and less of yours.

I think our relationship with Christ is to a large extent the relationship we have with others. If we Catholics as a parish, or a church, are not welcoming the strangers who come to our place of worship, we should be aware of, and working to fix that part of our call to bring Christ to others.

Peace,
Robert

Hi Robert,

If you’re interested, hit me up via PM. I’ve told the experiences on here a few times and would rather not hijack OP’s thread too much, and I think some users would prefer I don’t rehash too much on the boards

I’ll say though, it started when the Father at the Parrish wouldn’t perform our wedding for the fact I wasn’t Catholic and the latest would have been when the Father asked my wife if I found a place to go to church yet.

The experience you lay out above would never happen where we go

 

[benhur]

The Ebionites rejected the Apostles, and the consensus of the Church.

The Reformers rejected the successors of the Apostles, and the consensus of the Church.

 

[Brassring]

Your relationship with God should determine your denomination. I wanted the best possible relationship with God I could have. That’s why I’m Catholic.

 

[benhur]

Ben, again I ask you: If the Judaizers sincerely disagreed with the Council of Jerusalem (and we know that such a community actually came into existence after that council), what should they have done? Follow the Apostles, or what they had discerned?

Hi D,

I have gone over that , but not sure if you responded yet to my earlier question. If the pope were to declare Santa Claus and the bunny rabbit as God breathed icons of the season, apoint of faith for all, would you ‘‘follow’’, or obey your conscience if it thought differently on the matter ? (a hypothetical “whatever”)

Blessings

 

[Duane1966]

Hi D,

Yes pretty much, just as you agree with Cc…actually it was ok for them to follow their conscience. Just that consciences were wrong.

Thanks for the reply Ben. Actually, I would say Jesus anticipated the response of the Ebionites, and people like you. That is why He said: “whatever you bind…” That statement takes away the built in excuse that the Ebionites could say about following their consciences. It is an assurance to them, and you, that what the Church says is bound, is truly bound. Instead of realizing that in this case, their consciences were wrong and submitting to the Church, they, in their pride, said the Church erred. It’s a familiar song and dance, one that every schismatic and heretic cries. Their is a reason that Jesus said whatever, and that was to take away doubt. No one could pick and choose what teachings to follow.

It is quite another thing not to maintain consensus around successors, but for successors to maintain consensus with the apostles, and that with some difficulty, even 1400 years later.

Therein lies the whole rub.

So what is the time frame for when it is bad to ignore the teachings of the Church? What the Ebionites did was wrong because of the proximity to the Apostles? What about the Arians? They were not wrong because it was almost 300 years later? Your argument is ad hoc. You show no principled difference between the Ebionites, and the Reformers. I fail to see where Jesus put a time frame on the charism of binding and loosing.

Nor do I see a principled difference between you and a LDS. You both believe the Church went off the rails. They just believe it happened earlier than you. Yet neither of you can show when.

Hi D,

I have gone over that , but not sure if you responded yet to my earlier question. If the pope were to declare Santa Claus and the bunny rabbit as God breathed icons of the season, apoint of faith for all, would you ‘‘follow’’, or obey your conscience if it thought differently on the matter ? (a hypothetical “whatever”)

I answered in post #208.

Yes he can. But he won’t. The gift came with a guarantee that if it is bound on Earth, it shall be bound in Heaven. Jesus gave us a gift to never have to worry about whether the Church has bound, or will bind, in error. Was it possible for Christ to sin, or would He always choose the right thing?

If I give my daughter a $100,000, and say spend it on whatever you want, does my knowing she will not ever gamble one penny of it away, mean the gift was conditional?

In answer to would I follow? If he defined it infallibly? Of course!!! Why did Jesus give that power, if I am only willing to follow when I agree? He specifically gave it as an assurance to people when they don’t agree. As Chesterton said: " I do not need the Catholic Church to tell me when I’m right. I need her to tell me when I’m wrong."

When all is said and done Ben, you put limitations on Christ’s word. You said the whatever in binding and loosing is conditional, and you have made that condition on your judgment of what agrees with you. Jesus anticipated you, and others like you. He said whatever, no strings attached. If their were strings attached, He should not have said whatever. But he did, and His word has become a stumbling block to you. I affirm what He said unqualified. You cannot do that.

 

[Duane1966]

Ben, can you show me any passages of Scripture where Christ said His Church will err in it’s teachings?

Can you show me any passage in Scripture where Christ, or an Apostle, says if people believe the Church erred in it’s teachings, it is okay to ignore the teachings?

 

[James248]

Ben, can you show me any passages of Scripture where Christ said His Church will err in it’s teachings?

Can you show me any passage in Scripture where Christ, or an Apostle, says if people believe the Church erred in it’s teachings, it is okay to ignore the teachings?

Let me answer for him: There is none.

 

[benhur]

Ben, can you show me any passages of Scripture where Christ said His Church will err in it’s teachings?

Hi D,

One could ask where Christ said the church shall be centered in Rome and her head bishop, the final arbiter of any teaching ?

Of course you can, but rather implicitly, with some twists and turns. Not unlike someone saying that church can err on a matter opposing others in the church, not centered in Rome.

Can you show me any passage in Scripture where Christ, or an Apostle, says if people believe the Church erred in it’s teachings, it is okay to ignore the teachings?

Actually , it is foreshadowed in the OT. For sure we are not to obey man’s teachings over God’s teachings, and certainly God puts understanding in a man, even in leaders.

Certainly the Catholic church at Pergamos had some bad doctrine/teachings. They held the doctrine of Balaam and of the Nicolaitians. Had the gates of hell prevailed here , and for how long ? Were souls tripped up for a week, a month, a year, a decade ? Rome is nowhere to be found with correction, but certainly John and the “angel” dealt with them. You can argue that was only one church in error and not the entire church, just as one can say the entire church is not in error today over our points of contention, that either your church is right , or mine is, but the truth stands somewhere amongst us…

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Thanks for the reply Ben. Actually, I would say Jesus anticipated the response of the Ebionites, and people like you. That is why He said: “whatever you bind…” That statement takes away the built in excuse that the Ebionites could say about following their consciences. It is an assurance to them, and you, that what the Church says is bound, is truly bound. Instead of realizing that in this case, their consciences were wrong and submitting to the Church, they, in their pride, said the Church erred. It’s a familiar song and dance, one that every schismatic and heretic cries. Their is a reason that Jesus said whatever, and that was to take away doubt. No one could pick and choose what teachings to follow.

Hi D,

But it seems we do pick and choose as to what we dogmatize/follow. Certainly the CC chose the IC and the Assumption as an infallible point of faith, as if it came from Peter’s mouth, but almost 2000 years later.

The Ebionites bucked the direct word of living apostles, unlike like reformers. Apples to oranges.

One thing is a direct binding by a living apostles. Another is from a supposed successor 1000 or 2000 years later.

As Barnabus wrote, "Those knowledgeable of the Lord’s precepts , keep them,as many as are written. "

I fail to see where Jesus put a time frame on the charism of binding and loosing.

I do not see a time frame either, just in who is carrying the charism.

Can not escape this conundrum, that has been with us since the fall of the garden.

Nor do I see a principled difference between you and a LDS. You both believe the Church went off the rails. They just believe it happened earlier than you. Yet neither of you can show when.

I think it can be shown when something is off the tracks. Certainly what Tetzel was doing in Germany was off the tracks. Many will also say the IC or Assumption of 1870 /1950. We also have dates when "reformed churches’ have gone off the track also on certain matters, some very recent.

I answered in post #208.

Yes , thank you. But you did not answer why the Bunny and Santa Claus are not bound in heaven (and therefore can be bound by pope…although you then unknowingly admit to the condition I was talking about…only what is bound in heaven is truly binding)

Blessings

 

[Duane1966]

Hi D,

But it seems we do pick and choose as to what we dogmatize/follow. Certainly the CC chose the IC and the Assumption as an infallible point of faith, as if it came from Peter’s mouth, but almost 2000 years later.

Hi Ben, thanks for the replies.

Actually no, we do not pick and choose. We find intimations of those dogmas in some of early writings of the Church.

What does the time frame have to do with it? The Church did not define the Trinity for almost 300 years later. Should we throw that out? Nor did it define Jesus as fully God and fully human for 400 years after that.

I do find two points about your criticism of the Catholic Church taking so long to define these teachings as dogma laughable. They are:

1.) Can you honestly say that even if the Catholic Church had defined these dogmas at Chalcedon, that you would agree with them? Truth is truth, so your answer must be no.

2.) Do you realize the hypocrisy of your criticism of the time-frame, when two doctrines that you hold near and dear, namely sola fide and sola scriptura, Protestant historians admit cannot be found anywhere in the Church for 1500 years?

The Ebionites bucked the direct word of living apostles, unlike like reformers. Apples to oranges.

If you read the writings of some of the Reformers, before they broke away, they acknowledge the authority granted the bishops, until the bishops disagreed with what they wanted. The reason the Ebionites should have listened to the Apostles is that Jesus granted the Apostles Divine Authority. And the Apostles passed that Divine Authority on to their successors. So it is apples to apples.

One thing is a direct binding by a living apostles. Another is from a supposed successor 1000 or 2000 years later.

Did Timothy and Titus have Divine Authority? What about the bishops that Timothy ordained? Since those bishops would not be Apostles, was the Divine Authority that Timothy passed on, in doubt to the early Christians? At what point did that Divine Authority stop? Can you give me the date?

You, and others, have said many times that the Reformers did not want to break away from the Catholic Church. Why not? If the Catholic Church was not the Church that Christ founded, then the Reformers should have run like **** to get away. If they did originally intend a reform, and not want to leave (which their writings show to be highly doubtful), then that speaks volumes. It means they felt the Catholic Church was the Church that Christ founded. And if they felt that, knowing Christ’s promises to His Church would last into perpetuity, for the Reformers to go against the Church that Christ founded, is no better than the Ebionites going against the Apostles. Apples to apples.

By your logic, it would be okay for Jerusalem at the time of Christ to be unfaithful, after all they had been waiting for so long for the Messiah.

As Barnabus wrote, "Those knowledgeable of the Lord’s precepts , keep them,as many as are written. "

Does that mean if one were to be knowledgeable of a precept of the Lord, like any of the Ten Commandments before Moses came down from the mountain, since it was not written yet, they could ignore it?

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an* oral statement or by a letter of ours.

I do not see a time frame either, just in who is carrying the charism.

Finally, you admit the charism is still alive. Great. Now who in your life wields it, besides you? Ben, what church, that you can name to me, that exists right now in your life, will you allow to bind you, even if you think they are dead wrong in the binding? If you say that such a church does not exist, then either Christ’s Church did fail, and does not exist anymore, because all Christ’s gifts were to last into perpetuity. Or, you have usurped the power of the keys, and given them to yourself. Most Christians do the latter without realizing it, because it is oh so hard to submit, when you think the Church is wrong.

Yes , thank you. But you did not answer why the Bunny and Santa Claus are not bound in heaven (and therefore can be bound by pope…although you then unknowingly admit to the condition I was talking about…only what is bound in heaven is truly binding)

Show me how I admit to the condition, and I guarantee I have an answer that you are not prepared for.

The condition you have to realize is this, Jesus said whatever the Church binds on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven. That is the condition Christians must follow. Notice, no condition given by Christ, but a condition that we must follow. Does Christ say we can pick and choose which teachings that the Church binds to follow? Or does Christ say: He who hears the Church, hears me. He who rejects the Church, rejects me?

Ben, I give my daughter a $100,000 dollars, and tell her to spend it on whatever she wants to. Does my knowledge that she will never gamble one penny of it, mean I have put a condition on whatever?

The same goes with Jesus’ gift of binding and loosing. He is God. He knew when He gave the gift and said whatever, the Church would never bind in error.

You realize when you say He said whatever, but does not mean whatever, that would make him a liar?

 

[benhur]

Hi Ben, thanks for the replies.

Actually no, we do not pick and choose. We find intimations of those dogmas in some of early writings of the Church.

What does the time frame have to do with it? The Church did not define the Trinity for almost 300 years later. Should we throw that out? Nor did it define Jesus as fully God and fully human for 400 years after that.

I do find two points about your criticism of the Catholic Church taking so long to define these teachings as dogma laughable. They are:

1.) Can you honestly say that even if the Catholic Church had defined these dogmas at Chalcedon, that you would agree with them? Truth is truth, so your answer must be no.

2.) Do you realize the hypocrisy of your criticism of the time-frame, when two doctrines that you hold near and dear, namely sola fide and sola scriptura, Protestant historians admit cannot be found anywhere in the Church for 1500 years?

If you read the writings of some of the Reformers, before they broke away, they acknowledge the authority granted the bishops, until the bishops disagreed with what they wanted. The reason the Ebionites should have listened to the Apostles is that Jesus granted the Apostles Divine Authority. And the Apostles passed that Divine Authority on to their successors. So it is apples to apples.

Did Timothy and Titus have Divine Authority? What about the bishops that Timothy ordained? Since those bishops would not be Apostles, was the Divine Authority that Timothy passed on, in doubt to the early Christians? At what point did that Divine Authority stop? Can you give me the date?

You, and others, have said many times that the Reformers did not want to break away from the Catholic Church. Why not? If the Catholic Church was not the Church that Christ founded, then the Reformers should have run like **** to get away. If they did originally intend a reform, and not want to leave (which their writings show to be highly doubtful), then that speaks volumes. It means they felt the Catholic Church was the Church that Christ founded. And if they felt that, knowing Christ’s promises to His Church would last into perpetuity, for the Reformers to go against the Church that Christ founded, is no better than the Ebionites going against the Apostles. Apples to apples.

By your logic, it would be okay for Jerusalem at the time of Christ to be unfaithful, after all they had been waiting for so long for the Messiah.

Does that mean if one were to be knowledgeable of a precept of the Lord, like any of the Ten Commandments before Moses came down from the mountain, since it was not written yet, they could ignore it?

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an* oral statement **or by a letter of ours.

Finally, you admit the charism is still alive. Great. Now who in your life wields it, besides you? Ben, what church, that you can name to me, that exists right now in your life, will you allow to bind you, even if you think they are dead wrong in the binding? If you say that such a church does not exist, then either Christ’s Church did fail, and does not exist anymore, because all Christ’s gifts were to last into perpetuity. Or, you have usurped the power of the keys, and given them to yourself. Most Christians do the latter without realizing it, because it is oh so hard to submit, when you think the Church is wrong.

Show me how I admit to the condition, and I guarantee I have an answer that you are not prepared for.

The condition you have to realize is this, Jesus said whatever the Church binds on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven. That is the condition Christians must follow. Notice, no condition given by Christ, but a condition that we must follow. Does Christ say we can pick and choose which teachings that the Church binds to follow? Or does Christ say: He who hears the Church, hears me. He who rejects the Church, rejects me?

Ben, I give my daughter a $100,000 dollars, and tell her to spend it on whatever she wants to. Does my knowledge that she will never gamble one penny of it, mean I have put a condition on whatever?

The same goes with Jesus’ gift of binding and loosing. He is God. He knew when He gave the gift and said whatever, the Church would never bind in error.

You realize when you say He said whatever, but does not mean whatever, that would make him a liar?

Hi D,

So what was the reasoning for your presumption that heaven will not bind my hypothetical citing of the divine Easter bunny or Santa Claus, or an eternal Mary , and that therefore a pope can not either ? I mean all three qualify for “whatever”.

Blessings

PS. There is a big difference between believing you can not fail because it is guaranteed, and/or that you most certainly can fail (at binding) but won’t by His grace, even pray by His grace you won’t. Big difference.

To use your example, why do you presume gambling even a small portion of the 100,00 dollar gift would be wrong, or not part of “whatever” ?

 

[Duane1966]

Hi D,

So what was the reasoning for your presumption that heaven will not bind my hypothetical citing of the divine Easter bunny or Santa Claus, or an eternal Mary , and that therefore a pope can not either ? I mean all three qualify for “whatever”.

Hi Ben,

I think you better reread my answer. By the way, there is a reason that I specifically made certain in my answer to your hypothetical question, to make sure that the pope was expressly invoking the charism of infallibility.

PS. There is a big difference between believing you can not fail because it is guaranteed, and/or that you most certainly can fail (at binding) but won’t by His grace, even pray by His grace you won’t. Big difference.

What would the difference look like, since it is Christ that gave the guarantee? Should we believe that the gates of Hell will prevail, even though Christ guaranteed they wouldn’t? That is the illogical stance you seem to be taking.

Why should the Church feel she could fail at binding without error, when Christ guaranteed she wouldn’t? You seem to be mad at the Catholic Church, for actually believing the promises of Christ.

To use your example, why do you presume gambling even a small portion of the 100,00 dollar gift would be wrong, or not part of “whatever” ?

Never said it was wrong. Nor did I presume it was wrong. Nor did I ever imply that it is not part of whatever. You presume because of my foreknowledge that my daughter would not spend even one penny of it gambling, that therefore I have somehow restricted the “whatever.” But that is a logical fallacy.

Foreknowledge that my daughter would herself restrict the gift given to her, does not mean that I, in any way restricted the gift. She truly was free to spend it on whatever. She restricted herself.

Now, I think we can agree that Christ said whatever. If Christ, as you imply, did not really mean whatever, then He lied in saying whatever.

Ben, do you believe when Christ said whatever, He did not mean whatever?

 

[benhur]

Hi Ben,

I think you better reread my answer. By the way, there is a reason that I specifically made certain in my answer to your hypothetical question, to make sure that the pope was expressly invoking the charism of infallibility.

What would the difference look like, since it is Christ that gave the guarantee? Should we believe that the gates of Hell will prevail, even though Christ guaranteed they wouldn’t? That is the illogical stance you seem to be taking.

Why should the Church feel she could fail at binding without error, when Christ guaranteed she wouldn’t? You seem to be mad at the Catholic Church, for actually believing the promises of Christ.

Never said it was wrong. Nor did I presume it was wrong. Nor did I ever imply that it is not part of whatever. You presume because of my foreknowledge that my daughter would not spend even one penny of it gambling, that therefore I have somehow restricted the “whatever.” But that is a logical fallacy.

Foreknowledge that my daughter would herself restrict the gift given to her, does not mean that I, in any way restricted the gift. She truly was free to spend it on whatever. She restricted herself.

Now, I think we can agree that Christ said whatever. If Christ, as you imply, did not really mean whatever, then He lied in saying whatever.

Ben, do you believe when Christ said whatever, He did not mean whatever?

hi FD,

Why would your daughter restrict herself from gambling, for as soon as she does it is guaranteed to be OK ? You are correct it would be illogical for me or anyone assuming it could be wrong.

Blessings

 

[Duane1966]

hi FD,

Why would your daughter restrict herself from gambling, for as soon as she does it is guaranteed to be OK ? You are correct it would be illogical for me or anyone assuming it could be wrong.

Blessings

Hi Ben,

Another logical fallacy on your part. You are trying to say that somehow the Church binding in error, since it will now be bound in Heaven, would make it okay. This assumes that the Church would choose to want to bind something in error, to make it okay. Now, you may want that for your life, but why would the Church want that? Implicit in Christ’s guarantee is that the Church would never bind in error. Your conclusion does not follow from the premise.

For the sake of argument Ben, let’s say the Catholic Church really is the Church Christ promised the keys to. She binds her faithful to believe in the Assumption of Mary. If this in reality is not true, how did Jesus fulfill His promise of whatever you bind…?

Again I ask you, did Jesus say *whatever you bind…*to the Church? If yes, does the fact that the Church chose to restrict the *whatever *to only *whatever *on matters of faith and morals, and the fact that Jesus knew the Church would do this, cancel out Jesus’ gift of whatever? Or does it now logically become whatever, she binds on faith and morals?

Ben, once more I ask you. What living authority that exists right now, has the power to bind you, such that even if you felt the binding was wrong, you would submit to it?

So far, it does not seem that such an authority exists in your life. It seems to me that you have usurped that authority to yourself.

Ben, is Christ’s statement of whatever you bind… a guarantee for the Church that she will never bind in error? If no, then why did Christ say whatever? What assurance is there for the sheep, if as you say, we really cannot know what’s bound, until the end?

 

[benhur]

For the sake of argument Ben, let’s say the Catholic Church really is the Church Christ promised the keys to. She binds her faithful to believe in the Assumption of Mary. If this in reality is not true, how did Jesus fulfill His promise of whatever you bind…?

Hi D,

Maybe I should agree that the church can not err, by God’s graces only, and that any utterance apart from that is man speaking, and not under the “guarantee”. So for example when the church at Pergamos (?) erred in having doctrine of Balaam , and that of Nicolaitians, it was not the church as a whole , but only a part of the church, men or bishops speaking on their own, outside the guarantee.

So in the case of the Assumption, was it men or leaders speaking as men (doctrines of men), outside the guarantee? If so the promise of the guarantee was kept by those opposing such doctrine, and those resisting it for millennia (did not even a much earlier pope condemn spurious writings about her Assumption), resisting the binding of the “story” .

Or does it now logically become whatever, she binds on faith and morals?

Again, how can one tell ?

Would you really just say we can not, except that it must be right by promise, with no guidelines coming from our own reborn spirits in Christ…a sort of invisible auto pilot ?

Tomorrow Mary could be decreed an eternal creature, and it would be binding.

So if you were in Pergamos church (of Revelations), for a time you would be required to indulge into the “whatever” doctrine, because the gates of hell simply can not prevail and by faith we follow our elders/bishops and assembly (of Pergamos).,

So far, it does not seem that such an authority exists in your life. It seems to me that you have usurped that authority to yourself.

I am actually being very apostolic, doing even as St. Peter did. (He finally submitted to divine revelation to his inner man, even though it went against much of God ordained authority)

It is not the infallible church against a fallible believers conscience as you frame it.

It is a cooperation within an economy of (name removed by moderator)ut: from parents, and teachers, and spiritual leaders, and Writ, and History, all being processed, guided by the Spirit, in the spirit of a man. You know this, and I put it forth that it is the basis for your convictions as posted, as well as mine.

I can not in good conscience go against what God has wrought in me as He has in you . This divine communion of spirits ( a person and his Maker)) is just as authoritative as our parents, and pastors and history alike.

It can be just as wrong, or a sin against such a Godly bestowed spiritual reality, to buck against His authoritative guidance, by disdaining something good that is from Him, or by condoning something of man and not of God…(There is a point where you do not get credits by simply “following orders”).

What assurance is there for the sheep, if as you say, we really cannot know what’s bound, until the end?

Not either or again.

I would not belittle any of our God ordained (name removed by moderator)uts (parents,pastors,History etc) , nor God’s ability to illumine, to shepherd, even the basest of spirits/souls, to green pastures of assurance , as He sees fit.

For John in his epistle says we little children have an unction, from the Holy Ghost and know all things, yet Paul says we see thru a glass darkly now but will see things much more clearly.

So by faith we both accept (by the reasons listed above) a virgin birth thru Mary of our Lord and Savior. But I can not say that I am unctioned to believe that she was immaculate or assumed, yet still see by God’s pleasure an endless depth of holiness in her.

So for now let each be convinced in himself what God has wrought, and for sure all differences will be settled in that day. Yet there is enough common ground to fight the good fight of today, with plenty of vision and assurance, without any further binding.

Blessings