How does a Catholic increase the chance of getting into Heaven?

[Tanner9188]

I have not been following this thread for a while, nor have I read all of the posts. But besides the biblical passages that speak of Peter’s primacy, the “chair” reminds me of St. Cyprian’s words:

A.D. 251 Cyprian of Carhage

“And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness.”

No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?"

(The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition).

Also, as to Peter’s primacy and the role of Peter’s successors, see what the early Church Fathers had to say:

General/Various articles cin.org/users/jgallegos/papacy.htm

Primacy of the Apostolic See in Patristic Thought
cin.org/users/jgallegos/primacy.htm

Authority Claimed by the Bishop of Rome,The Pope
cin.org/users/jgallegos/pope.htm

**
Who were the earliest church fathers? I will go with them; you go against them…take you path; I have choosen mine and I’m sticking to the narrow way.

Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behind Matthew 16:18-19) as were the other Apostles, the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere does Scripture declare that Peter was in authority over the other apostles, or over the Church (having primacy). See Acts 15:1-23; Galatians 2:1-14; and 1 Peter 5:1-5. Nor is it ever taught in Scripture that the bishop of Rome, or any other bishop, was to have primacy over the Church. Scripture does not even explicitly record Peter even being in Rome. Rather there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome (1 Peter 5:13). Primarily upon this, and the historical rise of the influence of the Bishop of Rome, comes the Roman Catholic Church teaching of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20), and the “loosing and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11).

Also, nowhere does Scripture state that in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (apostolic succession). Apostolic succession is “imposed” onto verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2-5; Titus 1:5; 2:1; 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:19-22). Paul does NOT call on believers in various churches to receive Titus, Timothy, and other church leaders based on their authority as bishops, or their having apostolic authority, but rather based upon their being fellow laborers with him (1 Corinthians 16:10; 16:16; 2 Corinthians 8:23). For the Apostles are the messengers of the message that saves, the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Believe Scripture or believe it not; I choose to believe Scripture in it entirety and set it above all else in matters of faith and practice.

God bless!**

 

[catholic1seeks]

**
Who were the earliest church fathers? I will go with them; you go against them…take you path; I have choosen mine and I’m sticking to the narrow way.**

Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behind Matthew 16:18-19) as were the other Apostles, the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere does Scripture declare that Peter was in authority over the other apostles, or over the Church (having primacy).

 

[davidv]

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1366, “The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit.” The Catechism continues in paragraph 1367:

The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."

I understand what it is; but no matter how it is spun; it is resacrificing. Just as veneration is a form of worship IMO and what the catechism states.

When you read “re-presents” and think it means “resacrificing”, you prove to me you do not understand the Church teaching. I think you have also proven in this thread that you misunderstand and misrepresent Scripture in much the same manner.

 

[Tanner9188]

When you read “re-presents” and think it means “resacrificing”, you prove to me you do not understand the Church teaching. I think you have also proven in this thread that you misunderstand and misrepresent Scripture in much the same manner.

I really want to hear you explanation on re-presents. Try to do it in a way; that a simpleton, such as myself, can understand. Thank you.

 

[davidv]

I really want to hear you explanation on re-presents. Try to do it in a way; that a simpleton, such as myself, can understand. Thank you.

OK.
I’ll try.
Jesus’ sacrifice is a one time event. Correct? Like your birthday.
During the Mass Jesus’ sacrafice is recalled, and made present sacramentally. Like when you celebrate your birthday. When you celebrate your birthday are you born again?. I don’t think so. Your birth is recalled and re-presented during the celebration.
In the same way the Mass re-presents that which has happened only once. Like your birth.
Does this sound like re-sacraficing?
Please let me know if this is understandable.

 

[Tanner9188]

“part of the meaning behind Matthew 16:18-19” Then what’s the full meaning? Jews at the time would have understood Jesus as referring to Isaiah 22 and the keys. I think we’ve gone over this before in some other thread… In the Davidic kingdom, the king had a **prime **minister on whom the keys of the kingdom were given(Isaiah 22:22). In the new kingdom of Christ, Christ has a prime minister who is given the keys of the kingdom.

Do you believe Isiah 22:22 refers to Peter? Why do you believe that; because you were told, but looking at the OT in general and looking at the verses in Isaiah 22; clearly indicates the Messiah. What do you do with the keys in Revelation? A key is a key; it opens doors or locks them. All the apostles were given the key; what do you think the key might symbolize, putting aside what you have been taught? What other possibility?

I’d say that Matthew 16:18-19 is a pretty big declaration. “Your are Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my church”. And Jesus tells Peter to be the shepherd of His Church:

**The concept of “binding and loosing” is taught in the Bible in Matthew 16:19: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” In this verse, Jesus is speaking directly to the apostle Peter and indirectly to the other apostles. Jesus’ words meant that Peter would have the right to enter the kingdom himself, that he would have general authority symbolized by the possession of the keys, and that preaching the gospel would be the means of opening the kingdom of heaven to all believers and shutting it against unbelievers. The book of Acts shows us this process at work. By his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-40), Peter opened the door of the kingdom for the first time. The expressions “bind” and “loose” were common to Jewish legal phraseology meaning to declare something forbidden or to declare it allowed.

Peter and the other disciples were to continue Christ’s work on earth in preaching the gospel and declaring God’s will to men, and they were armed with the same authority as He possessed. In Matthew 18:18, there is also a definite reference to the binding and loosing in the context of church discipline. The apostles do not usurp Christ’s lordship and authority over individual believers and their eternal destiny, but they do exercise the authority to discipline and, if necessary, excommunicate disobedient church members.

Christ in heaven ratifies what is done in His name and in obedience to His Word on earth. In both Matthew 16:19 and 18:18, the syntax of the Greek text makes the meaning clear. What you bind on earth will have already been bound in heaven. What you loose on earth will have already been loosed in heaven. In other words, Jesus in heaven looses the authority of His Word as it goes forth on earth for the fulfillment of its purpose.

In reference to Cephas: John 1:42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas " (which is translated Peter ).
hgagen (5627) auton prov ton Ihsoun. embleyav (5660) autw| o Ihsouv eipen, (5627) Su ei (5748) Simwn o uiov Iwannou; su klhqhsh| (5701) Khfav {o ermhneuetai (5743) Petrov}.
Kēphas= stone Petros= a rock or a stone**

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.” He then said to him a second time, “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 distressed that he had said to him a 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. John 21:15-17.

Remember Peter denied Christ 3 times; this is Jesus restoring Peter; how do the apostles feed the sheep? By delivering the gospel; those who reject are bound and those who accept are loosed…very simple and not even complicated.
CONTINUED

 

[erikd]

Ahh Purgatory; a real $$ maker in the 16th century. Now it is gambling and alcohol sales at festivals $$$$$

Wow Tanner, another cheap shot from someone who himself has trouble producing proof.

 

[erikd]

I understand what it is; but no matter how it is spun; it is resacrificing. Just as veneration is a form of worship IMO and what the catechism states.

Tanner:

Did Jesus die on the cross for the sins of 2000 years ago or also for your sins?

If your answer is also for our sins, then is it not true that Jesus was put on the Cross for you as well?

Since I already know your answer is yes, then isn’t it your sins that put Him there to begin with?

If you say yes, then aren’t you putting Him up there every time you sin?

You see, Tanner, God died on the cross for all of us, as you already know, but we continue to put Him there every time we sin. If we were all sinless, the cross would have been unnecessary. Therefore, our sins make it necessary. Your and my sins made that sacrifice possible (a very troubling and humbling thought).

 

[holy_moly]

OK.
I’ll try.
Jesus’ sacrifice is a one time event. Correct? Like your birthday.
During the Mass Jesus’ sacrafice is recalled, and made present sacramentally. Like when you celebrate your birthday. When you celebrate your birthday are you born again?. I don’t think so. Your birth is recalled and re-presented during the celebration.
In the same way the Mass re-presents that which has happened only once. Like your birth.
Does this sound like re-sacraficing?
Please let me know if this is understandable.

That was a good analogy:thumbsup:

 

[brb2]

Learn to abide in Christ as John teaches, adopt the all the Beatitudes [especially charity], and make Mass your top priority.

 

[Tanner9188]

Peter’s role as the rock of the church and shepherd is clearly evident:

• Peter’s name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14). Matthew calls him the “first”. Peter is named first whenever he appears with anyone.
• Peter is the only apostle that receives a new name, Rock. And of course I’d argue that the name itself is significant. Just the connotations of the word “rock” give images of a solid, firm foundation. (Jn 1:42; Mt 16:18).
  EDITED FOR SPACE:Then Peter, filled with the holy Spirit, answered them, "Leaders of the people and elders: If we are being examined today about a good deed done to a cripple, namely, by what means he was saved, then all of you and all the people of Israel should know that it was in the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarean whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead; in his name this man stands before you healed. He is ‘the stone rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone.’ See Acts 4:1-13.

“explicitly” being the key word. And yet the ECFs were quite aware of his presence in Rome. Irenaeus in A.D. 189 says “Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church” (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1).

Not quite early enough IMO; 130 years after John. There is no evidence that Peter and Paul ever evangelized together; especially in Rome Paul made a point not to go places where the gospel was already established unless it was what he had established. In His letters to the Romans or any other epistle; he never once mentions Peter; had he been around or was someplace to where Paul was writing; Paul would have mentioned him by name. Are there any other statements fro ECf’s concerning Peter in Rome that are less than 130 years old?

Primarily upon what? “Scripture does not even explicitly record Peter even being in Rome. Rather there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon”. That? Well that’s incorrect. It wouldn’t even matter if Peter went to Rome (but he did, we even know where Peter’s tomb is.). Peter’s authority came from God. And his authority has been passed on from his successors.

Peters authority came from God; yes. Then Peters authority from God was given away to someone else? who? Were they able to perform Miracles, signs and wonders? Then, who was the next person? Did they posess the power God gave to all the apostles? You see the fallacies here. It is a serious fallacy because it changes the message and puts God authority into Peter, which is fine, but for Peter to pass it along; he would need God’s permission and we know is not in Scripture. Appointing someone as minister of the gospel is one thing, but giving apostolic power w/o God’s permission is not Scriptural and not possible unless God said it and He did not. Today’s Pope or any other Pope cannot perform miracles, signs and wonders for a reason; so that pretty much kills that illogical and scriptural theory dead as dead. Let me know what the DNA evidence reveals; oh that’s right, there is nothing to compare it to; so we really don’t know, but it sure adds to the myths.

Yes, all of the apostles were given the power to bind and loose. Only Peter was given the keys; he has a distinct office as has been presented.

Keys don’t reference an office in Scripture, maybe in some false religion, but not in scripture. What office and what proof of an office can you present?

You imply there is a means by which the Church is kept free from error. If you admit that; then that’s great! For “the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church” (Matt 16:18).

Little “c” church; not big “RCC” Church; which is the local church that makes up the “body of Christ”.

So in 2 Timothy 2:2, what is Paul telling Timothy to pass on and for what reason? No problem; Timothy was to take the divine revelation he had learned from Paul, the gospel, and teach it to other faithful men-men with proven spiritual character and giftedness, who would in turn pass on those truths to another generation. From Paul to Timothy to other faith men, then to other would encompass 4 generations of godly leaders.
Clement of Rome, writing in A.D. 80 while the New Testament was being written, says “Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3).

** 2 Corinthians 11:5 For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles. Paul is saying is is not the least inferior to the most eminent. (Standing above others in quality or position)

Also keep in mind that Peter was rebuked by Paul for leading people astray and Jesus said “get behind me Satan” in reference to Peter. IMO Peter was the most outgoing and obnoxious (cutting of the ear of the Pharisees assistant) of the 12 and needed more attention from Christ. Also, note that Jesus restored Peters 3 denials ; after the resurrection and asked peter 3 times “do you love me” Yes you know my heart and you know that i love you; then feed my sheep or do as I say. I believe that by the sheer weakness of Peter; Jesus was able to use that weakness to help Peter and being so outspoken; he is a natural leader when guided right by Jesus and later the Holy Spirit. It in no ways him more valuable or useful as the messengers of the gospel with special power to heal etc. Paul was the real rock of the bunch; he suffered and suffered and suffered, but look at the results God wrought through him; much greater than Peter IMO.

By the way, the name Peter is mentioned 154 times and Paul is mentioned 160 times. By that silly standard; Paul is the “King Apostle” - That’s all foolishness.**

I do believe Scripture – in its entirety – but not alone as an authority, as the Christians until the 1500s did.

That’s a shame for the Bible has the gospel; the message of salvation and is great for instruction in faith and practice.

 

[Tanner9188]

Tanner:

Did Jesus die on the cross for the sins of 2000 years ago or also for your sins?

If your answer is also for our sins, then is it not true that Jesus was put on the Cross for you as well?

Since I already know your answer is yes, then isn’t it your sins that put Him there to begin with?

If you say yes, then aren’t you putting Him up there every time you sin?

You see, Tanner, God died on the cross for all of us, as you already know, but we continue to put Him there every time we sin. If we were all sinless, the cross would have been unnecessary. Therefore, our sins make it necessary. Your and my sins made that sacrifice possible (a very troubling and humbling thought).

**Logic is flawed; He paid the sins once for all, past present and future. So every sin He know i would commit was put there before I was even born. What you are doing seems like going back in time and before the cross again and making the same sacrifice with the same victim over and over; kinda like the movie “Groundhog Day”. Doesn’t really matter it is an unworthy manner IMO; since there is no more tabernacle or levitical style priesthood.
**

 

[Tanner9188]

Wow Tanner, another cheap shot from someone who himself has trouble producing proof.

Everyone here knows this is true. I do not think they make money on indulgences anymore; but they have found other creative and ungodly (IMO) ways of getting money. It is all around me here and sickens me to know they are raising money from beer and gambling. I don’t recall anyone in the gospel trying to make sordid gains that Jesus ever approved of; do you?
I’m okay with the fish frys. Just so everyone knows, I will have a new roof on our house and we selected a Catholic contractor to do the job. How much Catholic; I don’t really know.

 

[Tanner9188]

OK.
I’ll try.
Jesus’ sacrifice is a one time event. Correct? Like your birthday.
During the Mass Jesus’ sacrafice is recalled, and made present sacramentally. Like when you celebrate your birthday. When you celebrate your birthday are you born again?. I don’t think so. Your birth is recalled and re-presented during the celebration.
In the same way the Mass re-presents that which has happened only once. Like your birth.
Does this sound like re-sacraficing?
Please let me know if this is understandable.

So you time travel literally? Celebrating my birthday; I don’t re-present a bloodless birth from my mother; what a bad analogy. Furthermore; who ate the flesh and drank the blood at the cross? No one. So why would you go back to the cross and then do something no one else did. Doesn’t matter the tabernacle made with hands is not Biblical and neither is the “leviticle-style” priesthood; none of that is in the NT and if were meant to be; then it would be clearly defined by Jesus Himself IMO.

 

[holy_moly]

holy moly;5505221:

**It is true you were “blindly defending” the Roman Catholic Church; however you understate that there is no personal attack on myself or “church”. Either way it is okay; none of that bothers me. I just want truth. However on post #120; you never addressed and the one you did choose the address you have no Biblical context, which I explained and do not need to go over again.

That was not a personal attack on you; looking at your responses or lack of; it seemed as though this was a child responding; especially compared to Church Militant, CentralJames and guanaphore; my advise was to observe them for a while and learn from them. Nothing more.**

As to #120, what are you talking about? As to the rest, don’t pee on my leg & tell me it’s raining

 

[Tanner9188]

Learn to abide in Christ as John teaches, adopt the all the Beatitudes [especially charity], and make Mass your top priority.

What about the gospel?

 

[Tanner9188]

That was a good analogy:thumbsup:

Especially if you have a bloodless rebirth each time we celebrate our birthdays. I told my mother, former Catholic, and she laughed; just as I did. Welcome to our “bloodless rebirth” party in honor of the day I was born.

 

[erikd]

Everyone here knows this is true. I do not think they make money on indulgences anymore; but they have found other creative and ungodly (IMO) ways of getting money. It is all around me here and sickens me to know they are raising money from beer and gambling. I don’t recall anyone in the gospel trying to make sordid gains that Jesus ever approved of; do you?
I’m okay with the fish frys. Just so everyone knows, I will have a new roof on our house and we selected a Catholic contractor to do the job. How much Catholic; I don’t really know.

That’s not true. I challenge you to provide me with evidence that the Church actually sold, for money, indulgences at any time. Keep in mind that I’m not talking about a rogue Priest, but the Church as a whole.

 

[erikd]

**Logic is flawed; He paid the sins once for all, past present and future. So every sin He know i would commit was put there before I was even born. What you are doing seems like going back in time and before the cross again and making the same sacrifice with the same victim over and over; kinda like the movie “Groundhog Day”. Doesn’t really matter it is an unworthy manner IMO; since there is no more tabernacle or levitical style priesthood.
**

Noone is going back in time, Tanner, but your and my sins did put Jesus up there. So, no matter how you look at it, every time you commit a sin it still puts Jesus on the cross. Whether you attempt to make it look like “Groundhog Day” or something else, every sin you commit put Him up there. If you argue with this then you are denying the sacrifice.

 

[Tanner9188]

Tanner9188;5506058:

As to #120, what are you talking about? As to the rest, don’t pee on my leg & tell me it’s raining

You keep making my point…enough already.