Non-Catholic View on 2Tim 3:16-17 - Apologetic Blog

[JonNC]

=ezeekl;11164905]Don’t bet on that. In fact the Orthodox had a system whereby one could purchase absolution from sin. I bet Luther would go bonkers with that one. See the following:

"Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheos Notaras (1641–1707) wrote: “It is an established custom and ancient tradition, known to all, that the Most Holy Patriarchs give the absolution certificate (συγχωροχάρτιον – synchorochartion) to the faithful people … they have granted them from the beginning and still do.”[48]

A Russian Orthodox source says that these certificates were in use among Greek Orthodox until the middle of the twentieth century, and were “**certificates which absolved from sins, which anyone could obtain, often for a specified sum of money. The absolution granted by these papers, according to Christos Yannaras, had no connection with any participation of the faithful in the Mystery of Penance, nor in the Mystery of the Eucharist”. **The same source interprets the Western indulgence also as absolution from sin, not as remission of temporal punishment.

Then there is this:

"The Orthodox believe, as you know, that the souls of those not yet ready for heaven all go to hades.

It is not the nature of hades that determines their length of stay there (i.e. eternal as in hell), but the nature of their sin that determines their length of stay in Hades.

Thus, they can be released from there until the Second Coming of Christ through the prayer of the Church etc.

The notion of “debt” even after sin has been forgiven is strong in Orthodoxy, although it is defined in terms of “works of repentance.”

In more than one place, Orthodox dogmatic texts talk of the need for works of repentance or fruits following forgiveness of sin in confession and how, should a soul die not having had a chance to be fruitful in this regard, it could be helped in the next life etc."

byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/100964/2/The%20Greek%20Orthodox%20had%20Indulge

There is no similar concept of indulgences within Orthodox Christianity.

oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/indulgences

When Christ said those words was 2,000 years ago and the church was not in existence yet so it was future tense then. Today we are 2000 years post Pentecost and the protestant revolt was 1500 years post Pentecost. Given the fractures and divisions, notonly in the general protestant denominations but also in the Lutheran denominations as well as the Anglican how can you honestly say that the Holy Spirit is leading those denominations? And the problem of fractures and divisions is not getting any better either. Jesus prayed that His followers would be one. That is certainly not the case today but don’t blame the Holy Spirit for that.

Remember that every one of those “denominations” are of the western Church, the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Every one of them! But, your very own Catechism says the Spirit uses these communities…
He can’t use them if He is not leading them. I happily say the that Spirit leads the Catholic Church. That doesn’t mean the leadership always hears Him properly. Anf that doesn’t mean the gates of Hell have prevailed, either. It just means siunful humans get things wrong at times, hence the need for grace.

But where is it? Who has that authority? We know scripture says it was given to Peter, first one in the office of chief steward of the church [again see Isaiah 22:22], and nowhere does scripture say that authority was ever rescinded or taken away. So, it logically follows that the authority, once given, remains in that office and today we call that office the papacy.

The authority was in the councils in the early Church, not one patriarch. If East and West were to restore that authority, or even if they agreed on universal jurisdiction, no matter what the decision, I would happily accept that…

Welcome to the Catholic Church!

Jon

 

[ezeekl]

Quote:
=ezeekl;11164904]
Did they have to? I mean, if Jesus said it, isn’t that good enough? Peter was given the office of chief steward of the kingdom [See Isaiah 22:22] and the keys to the kingdom [See Mt 16:17-19]. In addition he could bind and loose on earth as well as in heaven [ibid]. Consider that. That is awesome power given to a fisherman that no earthly ruler, past, present or future had or will have. And the reason Peter could wield that power was because of what Jesus said in John 16:13:

“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.” [RSV]

Again, this isn’t universal jurisdiction, but on the council, they felt the need to describe jurisdiction. If it was so obviously universal for the Bishop of Rome, certainly the council would have made it clear. Surely they would have used language that didn’t reveal an equality of jurisdiction for the other bishops.

Universal jurisdiction? In John 21:16 Jesus tells Peter he is to rule Jesus’ flock and you say that is not universal jurisdiction? Maybe we need to know what your idea of universal jurisdiction is. Here is universal jurisdiction in the early church:

“Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty” (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]).

Ignatius of Antioch [third bishop of Antioch after Peter and Elvodius] wrote:

“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the **presidency **in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1).

No, I understand the difference. Infallibility of any one bishop is not recognized in the early Church.

Really? I disagree. Remember the doctrine was formally defined in the 19th century so that before that the same idea may be expressed but not in its formally defined dogma. And we do find it in the early church. Origen wrote thusly:

“*f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

You will find this same referral to Mt 16:18-19 repeated by other early church writers. They knew and understood that Peter was no ordinary apostle or bishop and they also acknowledged that his successors had the same power to bind and loose.

Quote:
You know we have been down this road so many times and have refuted every claim of alleged fallibility it is really a shame that people cling to these false allegations. Your doing so is rather schocking because you seem to be better informed than the typical protestant. None the less, I will ask you to provide your best example of a pope who taught error. The only thing I ask is that you limit your example to those criteria cited by the church as necessary for papal infallibility. If you do not know what they are; I will list them as follows:

“When the Pope (1) intends to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme authority (3) on a matter of faith and morals (4) to the whole Church, he is preserved by the Holy Spirit from error. His teaching act is therefore called “infallible” and the teaching which he articulates is termed “irreformable”.”

NOTE: All four conditions must be present or else it is not an infallible statement.

Its number two I take issue with. Not scripture, not a truly ecumenical council provides for this.

You mean “…by virtue of his supreme authority…” Yes scripture. Do I have to shout it out loud??? Mt 16:18-19 the power to bind and loose on earth AS WELL AS IN HEAVEN Tell me one other human who has that power. WHO??? If that isn’t supreme authority then what is?

And this is proof of universal jurisdiction? Leadership? Perhaps. Primacy? I’ll buy it. But evidence of an accepted universal jurisdiction is not forthcoming from the early Church.

Well let’s see, the words of Christ as recorded in scripture aren’t good enough for you. The words of the early church fathers aren’t good enough for you. Seems to me you have a closed mind and only want to argue ad infinitum. I got better things to do so I will shake the dust from my sandals on this one. This thread has stryed for its initial intent and I am requesting that it therefore be locked.*

 

[JonNC]

Quote:
=ezeekl;11164904]
Did they have to? I mean, if Jesus said it, isn’t that good enough? Peter was given the office of chief steward of the kingdom [See Isaiah 22:22] and the keys to the kingdom [See Mt 16:17-19]. In addition he could bind and loose on earth as well as in heaven [ibid]. Consider that. That is awesome power given to a fisherman that no earthly ruler, past, present or future had or will have. And the reason Peter could wield that power was because of what Jesus said in John 16:13:

“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.” [RSV]

Universal jurisdiction? In John 21:16 Jesus tells Peter he is to rule Jesus’ flock and you say that is not universal jurisdiction? Maybe we need to know what your idea of universal jurisdiction is. Here is universal jurisdiction in the early church:

“Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty” (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]).

Ignatius of Antioch [third bishop of Antioch after Peter and Elvodius] wrote:

“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the **presidency **in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1).

Really? I disagree. Remember the doctrine was formally defined in the 19th century so that before that the same idea may be expressed but not in its formally defined dogma. And we do find it in the early church. Origen wrote thusly:

“*f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

You will find this same referral to Mt 16:18-19 repeated by other early church writers. They knew and understood that Peter was no ordinary apostle or bishop and they also acknowledged that his successors had the same power to bind and loose.

Quote:
You know we have been down this road so many times and have refuted every claim of alleged fallibility it is really a shame that people cling to these false allegations. Your doing so is rather schocking because you seem to be better informed than the typical protestant. None the less, I will ask you to provide your best example of a pope who taught error. The only thing I ask is that you limit your example to those criteria cited by the church as necessary for papal infallibility. If you do not know what they are; I will list them as follows:

“When the Pope (1) intends to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme authority (3) on a matter of faith and morals (4) to the whole Church, he is preserved by the Holy Spirit from error. His teaching act is therefore called “infallible” and the teaching which he articulates is termed “irreformable”.”

NOTE: All four conditions must be present or else it is not an infallible statement.

You mean “…by virtue of his supreme authority…” Yes scripture. Do I have to shout it out loud??? Mt 16:18-19 the power to bind and loose on earth AS WELL AS IN HEAVEN* Tell me one other human who has that power. WHO??? If that isn’t supreme authority then what is?

Well let’s see, the words of Christ as recorded in scripture aren’t good enough for you. The words of the early church fathers aren’t good enough for you. Seems to me you have a closed mind and only want to argue ad infinitum. I got better things to do so I will shake the dust from my sandals on this one. This thread has stryed for its initial intent and I am requesting that it therefore be locked.

His peace.

Jon