Jude 1:4 what is he saying?

[po18guy]

Backwards again!

Christ is the Head of the Church - we are members of His Mystical Body on earth.

Read Paul.

 

[po18guy]

Well, your buddy up there stated that the Bible, which contains God’s word, is subservient to the Church. God’s word is the God-breathed commands and revelation of the Father, ultimately revealed in the person of Christ through the Holy Spirit. If God’s word, which carries his command and his authority is subservient to the Church, what does that say about his view of who is the head and who is the body? Pardon the pun, but he has completely flipped the script on the role of the Church relative to Christ.

Sean, you only know that the bible is inspired because the Catholic Church declared it to be so. No one else had the authority to do so, and no one else had the authority to mess with it - as the reformers all did.

Do a little bible history - especially if you are artificially limiting your knowledge of Christ to bible alone.

 

[po18guy]

From the Rev. George Leo Haydock commentary, a reliable explanation that does not stand on opinion.

Ver. 4. For there have
crept in some men, impious men, (who were of old[2] foretold that
they should fall into condemnation, by their own obdurate malice) the
disciples of Simon, and the Nicolaites, who endeavour to turn the
grace of our God, and the Christian liberty into all manner of
infamous[3] lasciviousness; who, by their ridiculous fables,
deny the only sovereign Ruler, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
Some by the only sovereign, or master of all things,
understand God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, who, according
to his divine Person, is the same God, Master, and Lord with him, and
the Holy Ghost. But many interpreters think the true sense and
construction is this, denying Jesus Christ, our only
sovereign master,[4] and Lord. The reasons for this
exposition are: 1. That this verse of S. Jude seems correspondent to
that of S. Peter, (2 Ep. ii. 1.) where he says of the same heretics,
that they deny the Lord who bought them, or deny him that
bought them, to be Lord. 2. Because the disciples of Simon denied
Jesus Christ to be truly Lord God, but denied not this of the Father.
3. Because the Greek text seems to denote one and the same to be
sovereign master and the Lord. See Cornel. a Lapide. Wi.

 

[Telstar]

I admit that I was a bit confused by the original post that @Onthisrock84 made, but after reading the one that you are responding to, I believe I understand what he was referring to. Pope Francis, himself, as well as many local Catholic parishes across the country (and the world) participated in “celebrations” or “commemorations” of the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther’s “reformation”.

While I agree that nothing would be better than to have all of our separated brethren return to the Church in full unity, I don’t think that “celebrating” or “memorializing” the men that caused this horrible division in the Body of Christ is a good idea. It gives the impression that if someone believes that anyone in the Hierarchy is doing something contrary to Church teaching (which they were in the time of Luther), they should just nail a poster on the wall of the church and convince other people to follow them and form a new church, in protest. This is not the proper way to address problems in the Church. I can think of many members of the Hierarchy that have done things in recent times that make me cringe in anger, but I’m not about to leave the Church because some of the leaders have made some very poor decisions.

“And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.”

 

[Telstar]

This is the Douay-Rheims version: “[4] For certain men are secretly entered in, (who were written of long ago unto this judgment,) ungodly men, turning the grace of our Lord God into riotousness, and denying the only sovereign Ruler, and our Lord Jesus Christ.”

There is no mention of “designation” or “predestination” (as mentioned by others), but this seems to be referring to some members who had entered the Church and were causing grave scandal and blasphemy by their actions. Since the entire chapter (letter) was just one page, I decided to read it all. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that this letter of St. Jude is not only relevant to what was happening during his time. It’s my impression that this letter could have been written sometime in the past 50 years or so, and that history is repeating itself in the modern days of the Church.

 

[guanophore]

I believe I understand what he was referring to… many local Catholic parishes across the country (and the world) participated in “celebrations” or “commemorations” of the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther’s “reformation”.

Yes, I think it is wrong to celebrate separation. Men are always in need of Reform, but the doctrines of Christ are not.

The Pope, as the successor of Peter, holds the responsibility to feed and care for the whole flock of God. This includes all those who are separated or in a state of imperfect unity. He prays and works daily for unity, and to heal the wounds that have been incurred to the body.

The Popes since Vat. 2 have made steps to heal these wounds to unity, and bring reconciliation. A commemoration is not the same as a celebration, as we can commemorate events over which we still grieve and wish to rectify.

Wounds to unity

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

[838](http://838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.) "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.

 

[guanophore]

While I agree that nothing would be better than to have all of our separated brethren return to the Church in full unity, I don’t think that “celebrating” or “memorializing” the men that caused this horrible division in the Body of Christ is a good idea.

I agree, but it is necessary to 1) take responsibility for the wrongs that have been committed 2) acknowledge what we have in common 3) heal the wounds to unity toward reconciliation.

None of these activities include celebrating the men who caused the division. Especially in the case of Lutherans, who have rejected major parts of Lutheran writing and thought in favor of the contents of the Book of Concord.

It gives the impression that if someone believes that anyone in the Hierarchy is doing something contrary to Church teaching (which they were in the time of Luther), they should just nail a poster on the wall of the church and convince other people to follow them and form a new church, in protest.

I don’t think this is the case, but in point of fact, is this not exactly what happens? The United States has a majority of “Catholics” that are practicing a cafeteria method, where they pick and choose what teachings they will follow. It seems they are Protestants, but don’t know it!

This is not the proper way to address problems in the Church. I can think of many members of the Hierarchy that have done things in recent times that make me cringe in anger, but I’m not about to leave the Church because some of the leaders have made some very poor decisions.

This is the attitude that we much teach, model, and practice. We can start with the Catholics in the pews, but also reach out to our separated brethren with the same truth. As the Lutheran Church continues to split and fall into modernism, gradually but persistently drifting away from the Apostolic faith, those Lutherans who have a more catholic faith are going to be more motivated to return to the barque of Peter, and should be encouraged to do.

 

[Onthisrock84]

Well Martin Luther was an interesting person to begin with. His insecurities about sin drove him to a breaking point. Most of his writings don’t persuade me at all, they seem more like a guy who can’t get his way so then he begins quoting Saint Augustine to make all of his arguments. The problem is Saint Augustine wrote against the Manichean religion which he was a former member in many of his writings. He’s not writing against the Church at all. Which is interesting, did Luther not realize that or did he think his audience wouldn’t? He was also very anti semitic, some say he was the precursor to Hitler actually. He wanted all Jews exiled from the Holy Roman Empire.
At least Calvin’s arguments have some reason behind them. Not that I agree but he seemed to be more educated than Luther in theology.

 

[Telstar]

I agree, but it is necessary to 1) take responsibility for the wrongs that have been committed 2) acknowledge what we have in common 3) heal the wounds to unity toward reconciliation.

None of these activities include celebrating the men who caused the division. Especially in the case of Lutherans, who have rejected major parts of Lutheran writing and thought in favor of the contents of the Book of Concord.

I totally agree that we must recognize the fact that there were valid reasons for those who would eventually leave to be mortified by some of the things that were being done by some members of the Hierarchy. They had very good reasons to object to those impious practices. They just chose the wrong way to approach a solution to their problem, and they acted in some ways that were also unbecoming of the offices that they themselves held. So, there was plenty of blame to go around on both sides.

I don’t think this is the case, but in point of fact, is this not exactly what happens? The United States has a majority of “Catholics” that are practicing a cafeteria method, where they pick and choose what teachings they will follow. It seems they are Protestants, but don’t know it!

Absolutely true! And, if anyone tries to tell them that what they are doing is wrong, they say," “judge not lest ye be judged”. Sadly, I think for far too many Catholics in the Church today, that’s one of the few Bible quotes they can spew at the drop of a hat! Unfortunately, many of them have no idea what it really means.

This is the attitude that we much teach, model, and practice. We can start with the Catholics in the pews, but also reach out to our separated brethren with the same truth. As the Lutheran Church continues to split and fall into modernism, gradually but persistently drifting away from the Apostolic faith, those Lutherans who have a more catholic faith are going to be more motivated to return to the barque of Peter, and should be encouraged to do

I agree 100%. I think this is the reason I was recently drawn back to these forums after a long absence. I would love to help people find the truth. I always try to be charitable in my approach, and give people the benefit of the doubt. But, sometimes it can be frustrating to offer solid explanations of the truths of the Church only to be misinterpreted, or have your words twisted up like a pretzel and torn to shreds, or just totally ignored. However, if I can make just one person stop and reconsider their opposing position, it’s totally worth putting up with all that frustration.

 

[guanophore]

Well Martin Luther was an interesting person to begin with. His insecurities about sin drove him to a breaking point. Most of his writings don’t persuade me at all, they seem more like a guy who can’t get his way so then he begins quoting Saint Augustine to make all of his arguments.

One must remember that Luther was educated, formed, and ordained by the Catholic Church. He was very well read and had a scholarly approach to the Scriptures, imparted to him by the monks and seminaries he attended. So if one wants to start pointing fingers, one must start with his formation.

He was also very anti semitic, some say he was the precursor to Hitler actually. He wanted all Jews exiled from the Holy Roman Empire.

And before you start pointing fingers at Luther’s anti-semitism, be aware that this is another attitude he acquired during his Catholic spiritual formation.

At least Calvin’s arguments have some reason behind them. Not that I agree but he seemed to be more educated than Luther in theology.

If you think this, then you must fault all of his very extensive Catholic formation!

I think this is the reason I was recently drawn back to these forums after a long absence. I would love to help people find the truth.

Glad you are back. Too many old timers have left and never returned!

 

[Telstar]

One must remember that Luther was educated, formed, and ordained by the Catholic Church. He was very well read and had a scholarly approach to the Scriptures, imparted to him by the monks and seminaries he attended. So if one wants to start pointing fingers, one must start with his formation.

That’s the saddest part of his falling away from the Church. He really had a brilliant mind, but he also suffered from a very severe case of scrupulosity, which may have driven him to take such a radical turn, because he lived in such fear for his own salvation. I think he might have been trying to escape those feelings of guilt that had become such an obsession, so he decided it was better to believe that all that was necessary for salvation was to have faith in Jesus.

And before you start pointing fingers at Luther’s anti-semitism, be aware that this is another attitude he acquired during his Catholic spiritual formation.

This is also true. Many in the Church had very deep prejudices against the Jews, because they blamed them for the death of Jesus, even though they lived many generations after the fact and had nothing to do with it. It’s sad how prejudice of any kind that’s allowed to become ingrained in people can be passed on for so many generations.

Glad you are back. Too many old timers have left and never returned!

Thank you! I see a few familiar names here & there, but many more that I haven’t seen, yet. I do remember you from those many years ago, and it’s always been a pleasure to read your posts.

 

[guanophore]

I think he might have been trying to escape those feelings of guilt that had become such an obsession, so he decided it was better to believe that all that was necessary for salvation was to have faith in Jesus.

Yes, he did seem to struggle with scrupulosity, but that was not what finally tipped the balance. His understanding of salvation by grace through faith came before the papal appointees arrived in Germany collecting money for St. Peters. The Bishop of Mainz purchased his office for a great deal of $ and needed to pay back the debt, and the “sale” of indulgences was lucrative. Had it not been for this practice to raise funds, Luther may never have nailed those theses.

Luther clearly did not believe that “all that was needed is faith”, as he wrote in both his large and small catechism, an authentic faith is followed by deeds that befit repentance.

 

[Onthisrock84]

He wanted to take Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation out of the Bible because it didn’t fit his ideology especially James on works.

I am Catholic and accept the Church on the deuterocanonical books much like Orthodox accept the( many times even more) books as well. However when it comes to the Old Testament deuterocanonical books or he called them Apocrypha, I don’t see it that heretical seeing as even Saint Jerome didn’t view them on the same level of authority. I feel like the canon issue was never really taken as such a big deal until Protestants began using everything to justify their beliefs. Prior to that the Church was more like the Orthodox today where the view of the Canon is totally different. Really to them only all canon means is worthy to be read in church. Which is totally opposite of how the west ended up seeing it. Worthy to be read is now the apocrypha in Protestantism. Canon has come to mean the complete and total word of God and nothing less. Before the Protestant revolution it just wasn’t a huge deal. In fact most Vulgates included 3 and 4 Esdras(or 1 and 2 in the KJV) and the Prayer of Manasseh . Some even included Psalm 151.

The Reformation changed how scripture is viewed.

 

[Telstar]

I know that the subject of money had a lot to do with it, especially the so called “selling” of indulgences (which has always been a condemned practice). He saw what was happening and he knew it was wrong. I can’t really blame him for wanting to do something about it, but he certainly didn’t go about fixing the problem the right way. I believe he did start out by going to Rome, or writing to the Pope, didn’t he? But, he lost patience when he didn’t get the answers he was looking for right away and decided to take things into his own hands.

I think if he had been more patient and started preaching against the evils that were happening at that time, he might have become a great saint, and a true reformer of the Church. Instead, his actions (along with many others) caused such a grievous wound in the Church, that I don’t know if it can ever be fully healed. I certainly don’t see it happening anytime soon, without Divine intervention. All we can do is hope and pray, and keep on trying to change hearts.

 

[Onthisrock84]

Indulgences in themselves aren’t bad.
Of course they were being abused but the concept in theory is completely valid in the Church.

 

[Telstar]

Agreed. Indulgences had been a part of Church teaching for centuries, but they were not supposed to be sold like bus tickets to Heaven.

 

[Onthisrock84]

The Church was promised to never be led into heresy. Many Saints we venerate today were at one time controversial to the Church authorities. For example Saint Catherine of Siena wasn’t particularly loved by the Popes when she persistently made the case they return to Rome from Avignon. And even when they did it didn’t stop the years of the anti popes from what 1378-1414 was it? That was a major blow to peoples respect for the Papacy unfortunately and I believe gave first rise to what would become the Reformation. Hus was around at this time but like most his following didn’t amount to much. Had Luther went about it like many past Saints and not revolted but reformed with patience he may have been a great Saint. Maybe in his eyes it is what he was doing but at some point he must have realized especially with the excommunication and his referring to the Pope as the anti Christ that he was not a reformer but a revolutionary. In any case although he caused the largest split in 1517 and on with others in his footsteps to the second huge breach in Christ’s prayer for unity ( the first of course being the east west schism of 1054), the Church would never be one again in the west and led to people being led into false beliefs by people. It went from The Church to A Church. The only good that came from it was the true reformation which was the Council of Trent and unfortunately it came to late to stop the permanent separation that persists even worse now. Now we see thousands of churches breaking off from churches who broke off, over the smallest of disagreements. Some are so off base now the Church doesn’t even believe a handful can even be considered Christian or even a heresy but something completely foreign to Christianity yet the followers claim to be Christian.

Pray that Satan does no further damage.

 

[Telstar]

Pray that Satan does no further damage.

Amen! He’s done enough already, but he’ll never rest until Jesus returns and puts him in “his place”, forever! There are so many things going on in the Church right now that make me wonder if that might not be very far off, at all.

 

[guanophore]

However when it comes to the Old Testament deuterocanonical books or he called them Apocrypha, I don’t see it that heretical seeing as even Saint Jerome didn’t view them on the same level of authority.

The difference between Luther and St. Jerome is that Jerome submitted to the authority of the Church in the matter of the canon. Jerome’s hesitation came from the fact that the books did not persist in the Hebrew. Neither he or Luther could have known about the Dead Sea Scrolls that were not discovered for centuries, but God knew, and the HS led the Church to accept them.

. I feel like the canon issue was never really taken as such a big deal until Protestants began using everything to justify their beliefs. Prior to that the Church was more like the Orthodox today where the view of the Canon is totally different. Really to them only all canon means is worthy to be read in church.

This is quite true. From the time Pope Damasus authorized the canonical list in 382 AD there existed no books in the Bible in the West that did not include the Deuterocanon.

The Reformation changed how scripture is viewed.

Most especially, I think in the principle of Sola Scriptura. Once this doctrine was coined, the Scriptures began to be regarded as “infallible”, in place of the Church. This is the main reason for the continued splitting today.

 

[guanophore]

I know that the subject of money had a lot to do with it, especially the so called “selling” of indulgences (which has always been a condemned practice).

It has been since that time, but Tetzel was sent specifically by the Pope to Germany for this purpose. It was commonplace.

I can’t really blame him for wanting to do something about it, but he certainly didn’t go about fixing the problem the right way.

He tried. The posting of “theses” for discussion at university was common, and engendered scholarly discussion. He went to the Bishop, who ignored him, the Pope ignored him, and the diet prosecuted him. No one wanted to listen to this “upstart”. Things might have gone differently if they had!

But, he lost patience when he didn’t get the answers he was looking for right away and decided to take things into his own hands.

Not really. It took years for all this to come to a head. He was frustrated because the people that were supposed to preserve the faith did not want to listen.

Luther never wanted to separate from the Church. He wanted to separate from corruption.

I think if he had been more patient and started preaching against the evils that were happening at that time, he might have become a great saint, and a true reformer of the Church.

He did quite a bit of this kind of preaching, but saw the “evils” as residing in the pope and bishops.

Instead, his actions (along with many others) caused such a grievous wound in the Church, that I don’t know if it can ever be fully healed. I certainly don’t see it happening anytime soon, without Divine intervention. All we can do is hope and pray, and keep on trying to change hearts.

Yes, ,we must hope and pray for unity. Jesus is Head of the Church, and desires it. The more that the Lutheran synods drift into modernism, the more likely the orthodox Christians will move back to Apostolic faith.