Matthias, only a bishop?

[inkaneer]

Sigh. Okay I’ll bite.

No Inkaneer, this would not prove the point, because Judas chose not to be an apostle, and there had to be 12 for Pentecost. You are forgetting the free will factor; i.e. Jesus can’t force someone to be an apostle, and then if they choose not to be, oh well. The slot is open for whom Jesus chooses, and then the successor to Matthias after that point will be a bishop. You haven’t dealt with the fact that Jesus was able to choose the apostle through the casting of Lots, since this was Jewish tradition to determine the will of God. Or are you suggesting that Christ can’t work through the physical? If Paul was so obviously one of the twelve, why did he have to convince the other Church’s that he was an apostle at all, as is evident in his epistles?

Look its is nis=ce to have your cake and eat it to but you can’t. Likewise you cannot say that ‘Judas chose not to be an apostle, and there had to be 12 for Pentecost’. First of all where do you get this “…there had to be 12 for Pentecost”? No where in scripture or Church teaching does it say this. But I’m glad to see that you agree that Judas forfeited his Apostleship and that means Matthias can not be what Judas was not because he cannot succeed to the apostleship of a non apostle.

Yes, everybody has. “Apostole” (apostleship) is in every single translation. He is taking part in the apostleship, and taking the office. Don’t try to say the office of bishop, because etymological rules dictate that the term bishop came from “bishopric,” not the other way around. This means I’m not going to allow you to try to read the term “bishop” or “office of bishop” into what meant “office,” and LATER came to mean office of bishop.

Well when the wheels fall off the wagon wrecks. The word in Greek is episkope and it does not mean ‘office’ it means ‘overseer’. It is from that word that wer get our words that refer to bishops such as episcopal, episcopacy, If you look up the word bishop in a good unabridged dictionary like Merriam & Websters you will see the etymology of the word:

“Bishop:
Middle English bisshop, from Old English bisceop, from Late Latin episcopus, from Greek episkopos, literally, overseer, from epi- + skeptesthai to look”

So your argument liesin the ditch totally wrecked.

You’re not getting it. They weren’t “voting.” They were determining the will of GOD through LOTS.

Well isn’t that a form of voting? Whats the difference between counting lots and counting votes? The alternative is to appoint someone.

This is where it gets really funny, Inkaneer, and what caused me to lose all respect for your interpretive hermeneutic: Let his tent remain desolate is referring immediately to the field of blood that Judas bought, which was cursed, and not to his “apostleship.” This is immediately obvious after only a cursory reading of the passage in context, and so this entire elaborate argument you have constructed can go back where it came from. This is the danger of interpreting everything by yourself.

You humor yourself. That field of blood was turned into a cemetery by the chief priests. Hardly a desolate place in the meaning of the word which connotes a barren dessert wilderness. So the joke is on you.

This is simply you creating a false dichotomy. The fathers referenced were stating their opinions on Scripture. So it is not Scripture vs the Fathers, as you would like to think. It is St. Augustine’s *interpretation *of Scripture vs. Inkaneer’s. It is Holy Father Benedict XVI’s interpretation of Scripture vs. Inkaneer’s. Is it any wonder everyone knows you’re wrong?

My position is lock stepo in line with the church’s treachingin the catechism as well as scripture that there were 12 Apostles, not fourteen. So if the ECF’s and the pope are claiming there are more than 12 then you will have to ask them about any false dichotomy. I have already pointed out that there is no dogmatic teaching in the church that says Matthias was an Apostle.

 

[inkaneer]

There are twelve apostles for the foundation of the New Israel just as there were twelve tribes in the Old. The resoration of the Exile is something you accused me of creating as a novel idea earlier in the thread, and when I responded that you were completely in error you wisely didn’t pursue it. Some thing to consider is that there were twelve tribes, but the Levites were counted as a thirteenth, creating a difficulty, it would seem. This is why the Fathers clarify, and in their wisdom point out that Paul is parallel to the the thirteenth of the Levites, and so will not sit on the twelve thrones, for he rightly called himself the “least of the Apostles” due to his initial persecution.

Look, if you want to pursue this idea of the restoration of the exile then start your own thread. But don’t try to hijack mine.

I’ll remember this the next time you ever attempt to use a Church Father after disparaging them so arrogantly. It’s not just “the Church Fathers,” Inkaneer. It’s the UNANIMOUS CONSENT of the Church Fathers on this issue. The Sacripture-ECF false dichotomy you have attempted to created has already been covered. Add in Liturgical tradition, Papal interpretation, the Catholic Encyclopedia, etc etc etc, and you are making yourself appear to be a fool. You’re another burgeoning protestant making protestant claims about the perpiscuity of Scripture (justifying your bogus interpretation) and slipping on your own ideas down the slope of heresy, insulting your brethren in the process. “I’ll take Sacred Scripture over the Church any day.” Sound familiar? Inkaneer vs. the Church. How…epic.

I use the church Fathers only for their historical testimony and not for the creation of dogma. As far as dogma goes their opinion is no better than yours or mine. Apparently you think otherwise.

 

[Spirithound]

But I’m glad to see that you agree that Judas forfeited his Apostleship and that means Matthias can not be what Judas was not because he cannot succeed to the apostleship of a non apostle.

One cannot be an Apostle in hell.

Well isn’t that a form of voting? Whats the difference between counting lots and counting votes? The alternative is to appoint someone.

Casting lots is more like the two of them picking a coloured stone out of a bag.

 

[bo_leggs]

This is all much ado about nothing. I don’t know what version (translation) of the Bible inkaneer or anyone else is using, but if you read the Douay-Rheims version you will see that the Twelve, and later the Eleven, were called Apostles. And Acts 1:26 reads, “And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven Apostles.” “He was numbered with the eleven Apostles” means that he became the twelfth Apostle. The Twelve Apostles had been restored to the number that Jesus selected at the start. Then, when Paul was selected to be the “Apostle to the Gentiles” by Jesus, and confirmed by the Twelve, he became the 13th Apostle. Does it matter then that there were then 13 Apostles and not 12? Not in the least, but you will notice that the Apostles were no longer referred to as the Twelve. Paul did not replace anyone. The people who the Apostles set up as “overseers” of the local churches became called bishops from the Greek term “episkope”, and technically, even the Apostles were bishops because they oversaw local churches as well as overseeing, in cooperation with Peter and his later successors, the Church as a whole. It is also worth noting that the Apostle Peter established the Church (a local church) at Constantinople, but his successor there, after he went on to Rome, was a bishop. Once the Twelve and the Apostle Paul had passed on to their eternal reward, the term Apostle was no longer used.

 

[bo_leggs]

We do not know that Judas went to Hell. As he was dying, he could have repented deep in his heart, and it may have been sufficient for his salvation. We just do not know, so it is wrong for anyone to say he is there. Recall that the Church teaches that perfect contrition attains forgiveness of our sins even without confession. We do know that Judas was distraught over his action, returned the 30 pieces of silver and tried to have Jesus released.

 

[inkaneer]

This is all much ado about nothing. I don’t know what version (translation) of the Bible inkaneer or anyone else is using, but if you read the Douay-Rheims version you will see that the Twelve, and later the Eleven, were called Apostles. And Acts 1:26 reads, “And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven Apostles.” “He was numbered with the eleven Apostles” means that he became the twelfth Apostle. The Twelve Apostles had been restored to the number that Jesus selected at the start. Then, when Paul was selected to be the “Apostle to the Gentiles” by Jesus, and confirmed by the Twelve, he became the 13th Apostle. Does it matter then that there were then 13 Apostles and not 12? Not in the least, but you will notice that the Apostles were no longer referred to as the Twelve. Paul did not replace anyone. The people who the Apostles set up as “overseers” of the local churches became called bishops from the Greek term “episkope”, and technically, even the Apostles were bishops because they oversaw local churches as well as overseeing, in cooperation with Peter and his later successors, the Church as a whole. It is also worth noting that the Apostle Peter established the Church (a local church) at Constantinople, but his successor there, after he went on to Rome, was a bishop. Once the Twelve and the Apostle Paul had passed on to their eternal reward, the term Apostle was no longer used.

WOW!!! I quote:

“Apostle Peter established the Church (a local church) at Constantinople, but his successor there, after he went on to Rome, was a bishop.”

Any of you guys want to inform him that Constantinople didn’t exist until the fourth century and Peter died in the first? Kind of hard to establish a church when you’re dead. As for the rest it is obvious that the poster did not read the thread as this has been covered before.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
'…the sure way to prove me wrong is to find one bishop, just a single solitary one, in all of the 2,000 years of christianity who can show his line of succession emanating from Judas.

What would this matter? You’ve already stated that an Apostle cannot be descended from another Apostle.

That’s right an Apostle cannot succeed another Apostle but a bishop can. Is that not what the church teaches in its doctrine of Apostolic Succession or are you saying I am wrong about that too?

Now the reason this would matter is because it would be evidentiary proof to me that when Peter said “Let his habitation be desolate and let no one dwell in it” that he was not, as I maintain, referring to Judas Apostolic line of succession. But I demand proof. Don’t just pull a name out of a hat.

 

[inkaneer]

I am not questioning the Apostleship of Paul, I simple asked a question. ou seem to be gwtting very defenscive.Could that be because of your denial and rejection of what scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium teach. Could it be because you have set your one private interpetation above all else and made yourself your onw pope.

You have let to answer the question I asked about to authority of the Apostles and how it differs from that of the Bishops . Or how the word apostle means one sent out and how that would not apply not only to Matthias, but also to the bishops today?

Good then Paul is an Apostle. Now it is not I who is denying scripture or tradition and the Magisterium. It is you. How many times do I have to quote scripture and the Catechism that says TWEVE APOSTLES. You admit Paul was an Apostle yet you want to add Matthias too. So who is denying scripture and the church teaches me or you?

And need I repeat myself once more that the word Apostle has a specific meaning as well as a generic meaning. Anyone who is sent is an apostle. Today we would use the term missionary which comes from the Latin word emittere which means, oddly enough, to send. Gee, imagine that! But the word apostle also has a more specific meaning and that refers to the men who were called and sent by Christ and who formed the heirarchy of the very early church. Scripture calls this group the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb[Rev 21:14]. Judas was called by Jesus but never sent by Jesus and Matthias was never called nor sent by Christ. Paul was both called and sent by Jesus.

 

[inkaneer]

Inkaneer, I’ve asked this before, but you may have missed it.

Was the Church’s foundation incomplete until Paul was converted? Or was the Church’s foundation completed at Pentecost?

I believe I missed this post earlier so allow me to answer it now. Considering the fact that Paul was not made an Apostle until after Pentecost and cognizant of the fact that Paul wrote over 50% of the New Testament I would say that Church’s foundation was incomplete at Pentecost. Also, considering that Jesus told the Apostles that He had more to tell them but they could not bear to hear it but when the Holy Spirit came He would lead them into all truth . See John 16:12-13:

12 "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

And considering that the Holy Spirit only came on Pentecost and continues to guide the church then I would have to say that the church’s foundation was not complete on Pentecost.

 

[Spirithound]

That’s right an Apostle cannot succeed another Apostle but a bishop can. Is that not what the church teaches in its doctrine of Apostolic Succession or are you saying I am wrong about that too?

Honestly, I don’t know what the Church says about that specific point. Does anybody have a reference regarding whether an Apostle can succeed another Apostle?

Now the reason this would matter is because it would be evidentiary proof to me that when Peter said “Let his habitation be desolate and let no one dwell in it” that he was not, as I maintain, referring to Judas Apostolic line of succession. But I demand proof. Don’t just pull a name out of a hat.

Of course Peter was not referring to Judas’ Apostolic line of succession. That would require Judas to actually ordain someone himself. What Peter could have been referring to was simply the office of Apostle.

Consider this: when a company selects a new Vice-President of Human Resources, he is succeeding to the office of the previous VP-HR, even though he is long gone, but he derives his legitimacy and power from the current Board of Directors of the company.

In the same way, Matthias would not need to be ordained by Judas to occupy his Apostolate.

Also in the same way, a bishop today does not need to be ordained by the bishop whose see he is taking over.

 

[Spirithound]

Honestly, I don’t know what the Church says about that specific point. Does anybody have a reference regarding whether an Apostle can succeed another Apostle?

I just had a thought about this. Paul is in exactly the same boat as Matthias regarding Judas. If Paul does not need the physical Judas in order to occupy an Apostolate, then neither does Matthias.

 

[NotWorthy]

I believe I missed this post earlier so allow me to answer it now. Considering the fact that Paul was not made an Apostle until after Pentecost and cognizant of the fact that Paul wrote over 50% of the New Testament I would say that Church’s foundation was incomplete at Pentecost. Also, considering that Jesus told the Apostles that He had more to tell them but they could not bear to hear it but when the Holy Spirit came He would lead them into all truth . See John 16:12-13:

12 "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

And considering that the Holy Spirit only came on Pentecost and continues to guide the church then I would have to say that the church’s foundation was not complete on Pentecost.

Ah, so the Foundation wasn’t complete. There was some lacking in Jesus’s bulding of His Church. Evidently the Church wasn’t compete until the 90’s then, until all the Scriptures were complete. It’s turned into an irrelevant point, however.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

:banghead:

I am done. I can not longer continue with this as it has become a exercise in futility. In one conner we have Inkaneer in the other everyone else. I for one can not continue as I see my charability sliding away. I have already posteed comments that, all though meant in a spritit od chirstian love can be harmful and for that I do ask that they be seen in the light they are intened.

Inkaneer I struggle each day with pride and find it hard to admit when I am wrong, it is by god love that I am slowly becomeing able to over come this sinful pride. I pray that you read over evething that has been posted here and see that you are placeing yourself outside of the teacings of the church. It may not be on a dogmatic issue at this point, but Luther did not strat out with dogmatic issue with the church either. If you find one thing that the church is inerro on how long before you find another and another. Please pray and see were your logic wrong here.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

The word used in Acts 1:20 is “habitation” [Greek *Epaulis

]. It means farm or dwelling. Judas is no farmer. In Psalm 69:25 that Peter quotes in Acts 1:20 the word is Tiyrah and it means an encampment, tent camp or a walled dwelling place, The connotation is a place where humans live. This is fortified by the second part of Psalm 69:25, “…let none dwell in their tents.” there you have the words “dwell” *Yashab *meaning to abide] and tents 'ohelmeaning nomad’s tent, dwelling, home, habitation] Now in Judas time the Jews were not nomadic. They had houses. So the word habitation there does refer to a house. In Luke 1:27 the word ‘house’ is Oikos and it means literally a house or dwelling place but ican also mean stock, family, descendants of one. In Luke 1;27 it obviously means the latter since David lived 27 generations before Joseph. In addition in Acts 1:20 Peter says let his habitation be desolate. The word for desolate is Eremos and it means solitary, lonely, desolate, uninhabited. Did you know that Jesus used almost this same phrase in describing the Pharisees? You will find it in Matthew 23:38:

37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! 38 Behold, your house is forsaken and desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”

The words there for house is Oikos the very same one as in Luke 1:27 and the word for desolate is Eremos the very same one used by Peter in Acts 1:20. So the tie in is complete.

Am I missing something here? All you did is spit back the meanings of the words back to me and totally avoided my contextual argument. The tie-in is anything but complete, because you haven’t dealt with the fact that the term for Judas’ was literal, and not symbolic in the same way the term in Luke 1:27 can be. Also, you haven’t dealt with the fact that it obviously refers to the field of blood, and that aside from dwelling in the sense of a hut, it can also refer to a yard. Hmmm. Put two and two together.

Besides the fact that you completely skipped this issue when dealing with individual Greek words, the Psalm that Peter quoted, in context, is linked back in the Greek to the preceding statement, which is in reference to the field of Blood. Then he moves on to the statement about Judas’ office. You are attempting to deliberately misread the passage, and form very tenuous connections based off of solitary words.

Why is it tenuous? Not only because the words don’t match up, and not only because you are avoiding the larger context in the English and the Greek that I have already pointed out, but because you are attempting to link the passages in 23:38 with the passges in Acts 1 now, based off this tenuous word association. The problem is, in Matthew 23:38, Jesus is referencing Jeremiah 22:5, not citing the Psalm, so the point he is trying to make is a completely different context.

Again, you are using strikingly terrible exegesis, strained beyond the point of belief, to make an even worse point, against the Church. How can you seriously not let this go? I’m thinking I should have listened to my first inclination and not engaged in this unfruitful discussion again, but frankly sometimes you really say some off-the-wall stuff.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
That’s right an Apostle cannot succeed another Apostle but a bishop can. Is that not what the church teaches in its doctrine of Apostolic Succession or are you saying I am wrong about that too?

Honestly, I don’t know what the Church says about that specific point. Does anybody have a reference regarding whether an Apostle can succeed another Apostle?

Try thes paragraphs from the Catechism:

1087 Thus the risen Christ, by giving the Holy Spirit to the apostles, entrusted to them his power of sanctifying: they became sacramental signs of Christ. By the power of the same Holy Spirit they entrusted this power to their successors. This “apostolic succession” structures the whole liturgical life of the Church and is itself sacramental, handed on by the sacrament of Holy Orders.

1555 “Amongst those various offices which have been exercised in the Church from the earliest times the chief place, according to the witness of tradition, is held by the function of those who, through their appointment to the dignity and responsibility of bishop, and in virtue consequently of the unbroken succession going back to the beginning, are regarded as transmitters of the apostolic line.”

1576 Since the sacrament of Holy Orders is the sacrament of the apostolic ministry, it is for the bishops as the successors of the apostles to hand on the “gift of the Spirit,” the “apostolic line.” Validly ordained bishops, i.e., those who are in the line of apostolic succession, validly confer the three degrees of the sacrament of Holy Orders.

1593 Since the beginning, the ordained ministry has been conferred and exercised in three degrees: that of bishops, that of presbyters, and that of deacons. The ministries conferred by ordination are irreplaceable for the organic structure of the Church: without the bishop, presbyters, and deacons, one cannot speak of the Church (cf. St. Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Trall. 3,1).

Quote:
Now the reason this would matter is because it would be evidentiary proof to me that when Peter said “Let his habitation be desolate and let no one dwell in it” that he was not, as I maintain, referring to Judas Apostolic line of succession. But I demand proof. Don’t just pull a name out of a hat.

Of course Peter was not referring to Judas’ Apostolic line of succession. That would require Judas to actually ordain someone himself. What Peter could have been referring to was simply the office of Apostle.

Consider this: when a company selects a new Vice-President of Human Resources, he is succeeding to the office of the previous VP-HR, even though he is long gone, but he derives his legitimacy and power from the current Board of Directors of the company.

In the same way, Matthias would not need to be ordained by Judas to occupy his Apostolate.

Also in the same way, a bishop today does not need to be ordained by the bishop whose see he is taking over.

There is no office of Apostle. There is no such term in scripture or the catechism. Showe me where office is a recognized office in the church. Look at para 1593 pof the catechism:

“1593 Since the beginning, the ordained ministry has been conferred and exercised in three degrees: that of bishops, that of presbyters, and that of deacons. The ministries conferred by ordination are irreplaceable for the organic structure of the Church: without the bishop, presbyters, and deacons, one cannot speak of the Church (cf. St. Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Trall. 3,1).”

Notice the reference is St. Ignatius of Antioch who was a disciple of the Apostle John. If there was an “office of Apostle” I would think Ignatius would have received that information from John and would have mentioned it in his writings. But according to the Catholic Church he didn’t. So forget the office of Apostle, for according to the church, it doesn’t exist.

But back to your premise, if Matthias does not get his alleged apostleship from Judas who does he receive it from? Peter? the eleven apostles? If you say no then where doesit come? If you say yes then Matthias is not an Apostle of Jesus . All the other apostles were Apostles of Jesus Christ, called by him and sent by Him. If you want to call Matthias an apostle then the best he can be is an apostle of Peter or an apostle of the apostles. But he is no apostle of Jesus or an apostle of the Lamb as Revelation 21:14 puts it. Those 12 names on the 2 foundations of the New Jerusalem are called the twelve Apostles of the Lamb in Rev 21:14and Matthias is not one of them. Checkmate!!!

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Look its is nis=ce to have your cake and eat it to but you can’t. Likewise you cannot say that ‘Judas chose not to be an apostle, and there had to be 12 for Pentecost’. First of all where do you get this “…there had to be 12 for Pentecost”? No where in scripture or Church teaching does it say this. But I’m glad to see that you agree that Judas forfeited his Apostleship and that means Matthias can not be what Judas was not because he cannot succeed to the apostleship of a non apostle.

Notworthy has already pointed out, in a very pertinent point that I’m sure flew right by you, that the Church had to be established for Pentecost. A major theme of OT prophecy is the restoration of the twelve tribes. Do a little reading on this before you make more statements in the future. Your point about the apostleship is tied in with this answer. There had to be twelve, or Jesus was not the Messiah.

Well when the wheels fall off the wagon wrecks. The word in Greek is episkope and it does not mean ‘office’ it means ‘overseer’. It is from that word that wer get our words that refer to bishops such as episcopal, episcopacy, If you look up the word bishop in a good unabridged dictionary like Merriam & Websters you will see the etymology of the word:

“Bishop:
Middle English bisshop, from Old English bisceop, from Late Latin episcopus, from Greek episkopos, literally, overseer, from epi- + skeptesthai to look”

So your argument liesin the ditch totally wrecked.

I already corrected the source of confusion in a later post. Overseer is one of the possible words, but it still refers to the office, because it is not “overseer,” it is the “overseership.” And sorry to burst your bubble, but “office” is still an equally legitimate translation.

Well isn’t that a form of voting? Whats the difference between counting lots and counting votes? The alternative is to appoint someone.

I just said it’s not a form of voting. God is the one making the vote. Destroying your entire argument that Matthias was not sent by God and so could not be an apostle.

You humor yourself. That field of blood was turned into a cemetery by the chief priests. Hardly a desolate place in the meaning of the word which connotes a barren dessert wilderness. So the joke is on you.

Umm, no. It connotates exactly what the meaning of the Greek word is: Lonely, uninhabited, solitary, desolate. A desert or wilderness is an example, not the meaning, otherwise the term could not be used to describe a person as well. Other examples besides desert and wilderness are “lonely regions” or “uncultivated regions.” So a cemetary, unclean in the eyes of Jews, where no Jew could go, is not considered desolate? Stop trying to play Greek games by concordance, you’re getting lost in your own point.

 

[inkaneer]

Am I missing something here? All you did is spit back the meanings of the words back to me and totally avoided my contextual argument. The tie-in is anything but complete, because you haven’t dealt with the fact that the term for Judas’ was literal, and not symbolic in the same way the term in Luke 1:27 can be. Also, you haven’t dealt with the fact that it obviously refers to the field of blood, and that aside from dwelling in the sense of a hut, it can also refer to a yard. Hmmm. Put two and two together.

Besides the fact that you completely skipped this issue when dealing with individual Greek words, the Psalm that Peter quoted, in context, is linked back in the Greek to the preceding statement, which is in reference to the field of Blood. Then he moves on to the statement about Judas’ office. You are attempting to deliberately misread the passage, and form very tenuous connections based off of solitary words.

Why is it tenuous? Not only because the words don’t match up, and not only because you are avoiding the larger context in the English and the Greek that I have already pointed out, but because you are attempting to link the passages in 23:38 with the passges in Acts 1 now, based off this tenuous word association. The problem is, in Matthew 23:38, Jesus is referencing Jeremiah 22:5, not citing the Psalm, so the point he is trying to make is a completely different context.

Again, you are using strikingly terrible exegesis, strained beyond the point of belief, to make an even worse point, against the Church. How can you seriously not let this go? I’m thinking I should have listened to my first inclination and not engaged in this unfruitful discussion again, but frankly sometimes you really say some off-the-wall stuff.

The short answer is I reject your premise. I do so because you have provided no documentation to support this. Show me where the church says what you said. Show me where this is official church teaching. Oh by the way Judas never never owned or lived in or on the “field of Blood”. If you recall the priests used the money Judas threw back at them to by it. They bought it after Judas died. And the 'field of Blood" wasn’t desolate either.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Look, if you want to pursue this idea of the restoration of the exile then start your own thread. But don’t try to hijack mine.

I use the church Fathers only for their historical testimony and not for the creation of dogma. As far as dogma goes their opinion is no better than yours or mine. Apparently you think otherwise.

Yeah I do. So does the Council of Trent, session 4:

Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it decrees that no one relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions,[5] presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and interpretation,[6] has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, even though such interpretations should never at any time be published. +]
Those who act contrary to this shall be made known by the ordinaries and punished in accordance with the penalties prescribed by the law.

Hey inkaneer, remember that line I kept giving you about the unanimous consent of the fathers regarding Matthias, that you so forcefully rejected? Well take that, add in some liturgical tradition and the current understanding of the Church, and you can play your interpret-the-Catechism game all you want, you are still in schism.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

The short answer is I reject your premise. I do so because you have provided no documentation to support this. Show me where the church says what you said. Show me where this is official church teaching. Oh by the way Judas never never owned or lived in or on the “field of Blood”. If you recall the priests used the money Judas threw back at them to by it. They bought it after Judas died. And the 'field of Blood" wasn’t desolate either.

Oh of course you do. You reject it not because of Tradition, Magisterium, and good common sense, but because the Church doesn’t infallibly teach my specific interpretation, but then reject the Church when it teaches against your interpretation. See the council of Trent above, then while you’re at it, explain Acts 1:18. Hint: The field belongs to Judas. The fact that you can’t respond to the argument in question is duly noted, by the way.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
You humor yourself. That field of blood was turned into a cemetery by the chief priests. Hardly a desolate place in the meaning of the word which connotes a barren dessert wilderness. So the joke is on you.

Ah, yes, a barren deseret/wilderness. So a cemetary, unclean in the eyes of Jews, where no Jew could go, is not considered barren? Sigh…

No the Jews did not think of cemeteries as unclean. Think about it how did they bury anyone if cemeteries were unclean and they could not go into them? . Also Jesus entered a cemetery when Lazarus was raised along with others who moved the stone away. How about we quit making stuff up, Okay?

By the way the 'field of Blood" never belonged to Judas so how could it be his habitation? Also, do you think Catholic Cemeteries are desolate?