Prodigal's Isle

[davidv]

Luther preached against the practice of indulgences.

Are you sure that was what Luther preached against?

My understanding is that what Luther Luther preached against, legitimately I’d add, were abuses of the practice.

The teaching of a different gospel than the one Christ taught is a stronger reason given for the Protestant Reformation.

I believe this to be a false claim. Errors of individuals within the Church do not invalidate the truth of Church teachings, even if individuals teach against them.

 

[utunumsint]

Luther preached against the practice of indulgences. The teaching of a different gospel than the one Christ taught is a stronger reason given for the Protestant Reformation.

Have you read up on what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say about it?

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Indulgences

God bless,
Ut

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I’ll post Jesus’ own words now;

18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The promise was made to an ‘it’, the ‘it’ is His Church. The promise was made to His Church. Therefore people stay with ‘it’, His Church, and do not follow ‘people’ who want to leave ‘it’, His Church.
Safety is within ‘it’, His Church - the ‘it’ to which His promise was directed.

I find it interesting that on the passages of sacred scripture about which Protestants disagree, Christ appears to be ambiguous. English grammar allows that the word it, in the quote you mentioned, can modify either the word church or the word rock. That is, the gates of hell will not prevail against the rock. This is what the Protestants i’ve heard teach on this passage claim.

Now, i’m not saying they are right. But for the sake of understanding them, let’s consider whether their understanding of Jesus’ words would change the meaning of the passage. If when Jesus said this,

a.

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

(Matthew 16:18)

He meant this,

a2.

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome this rock.

(Matthew 16:18)

does this interpretation convey a different message?

 

[Thing]

I find it interesting that on the passages of sacred scripture about which Protestants disagree, Christ appears to be ambiguous. English grammar allows that the word it, in the quote you mentioned, can modify either the word church or the word rock. That is, the gates of hell will not prevail against the rock. This is what the Protestants i’ve heard teach on this passage claim.

Now, i’m not saying they are right. But for the sake of understanding them, let’s consider whether their understanding of Jesus’ words would change the meaning of the passage. If when Jesus said this,

a.

He meant this,

a2.

does this interpretation convey a different message?

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

If the word ‘it’ modified the word ‘rock’; firstly, it might be seen to be rather superfluous of Jesus to say that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against God.

Howsoever… we are still left with the picture of His Church, which He builds, set on the foundations of the rock. The Church He founded is as immovable as the rock is immovable. He founded a Church on a rock. He founded a church.

But where did the word rock come from anyway. There was Jesus, talking away about something, and all of a sudden He says ‘rock’. What put that particular word into His mind, why ‘rock’.
An answer would be that He had only just then changed St. Peters name from Cephas to Peter, Peter as everyone knows, means rock.
So, Jesus had just changed Peters name to rock, and suddenly it all becomes clear why Jesus had apparently out-of-the-blue said the word ‘rock’. Peter had just been renamed ‘rock’, and Jesus said in His very next sentence ‘and on this rock I will build My Church’, and finishes that very same sentence saying '…and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against ‘it’.
St. Peter therfore was associated with the word ‘rock’, and as St. Peter is not an ‘it’, the ‘it’ is associated with the church which Jesus said He was to build on the rock.

Any help?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

If the word ‘it’ modified the word ‘rock’; firstly, it might be seen to be rather superfluous of Jesus to say that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against God.

Howsoever… we are still left with the picture of His Church, which He builds, set on the foundations of the rock. The Church He founded is as immovable as the rock is immovable. He founded a Church on a rock. He founded a church.

But where did the word rock come from anyway. There was Jesus, talking away about something, and all of a sudden He says ‘rock’. What put that particular word into His mind, why ‘rock’.
An answer would be that He had only just then changed St. Peters name from Cephas to Peter, Peter as everyone knows, means rock.
So, Jesus had just changed Peters name to rock, and suddenly it all becomes clear why Jesus had apparently out-of-the-blue said the word ‘rock’. Peter had just been renamed ‘rock’, and Jesus said in His very next sentence ‘and on this rock I will build My Church’, and finishes that very same sentence saying '…and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against ‘it’.
St. Peter therfore was associated with the word ‘rock’, and as St. Peter is not an ‘it’, the ‘it’ is associated with the church which Jesus said He was to build on the rock.

Any help?

Forgive me, but i’m having trouble understanding. Are you saying that Protestants believe the word rock is a synonym for God?

a3.

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this God I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome this it.

(Matthew 16:18)

If that’s is what they believe, then i’d agree that they are mistaken.

 

[davidv]

Forgive me, but i’m having trouble understanding. Are you saying that Protestants believe the word rock is a synonym for God?

Absolutely, and Catholics would agree, but not in this specific context. The OT records:

…my God, my rock…

2 Sam 22:3​

a3.

If that’s is what they believe, then i’d agree that they are mistaken.

 

[Thing]

Forgive me, but i’m having trouble understanding. Are you saying that Protestants believe the word rock is a synonym for God?

a3.

If that’s is what they believe, then i’d agree that they are mistaken.

So I have heard from some, Christ is the rock, God is Christ, God is the rock.
I can’t imagine what else the rock could be; God/Christ, St. Peter, an actual rock in Petra, or St. Peters statement. Or the rock is St. Peter himself, the St. Peter who believes in God/Christ and holds firmly to his statement about Christ. In any event a church was to be built on the rock. And it is a church which was establised way back then and which has to continue to the present which is the church on the rock which will prevail.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Yes, He is the rock, but that is not the interpretation i’ve heard taught. This is:

When Jesus said:

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”

(Matthew 16:18)

The rock to which Christ refers is found in the immediate context:

“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.

(Matthew 16:15-17)

Therefore, the rock is the truth Peter spoke, which is the revelation he received that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. Hence, they understand the passage to mean this:

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this **[truth that I am the Son of God] **I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome [this truth].”

(Matthew 16:18)

That is the only interpretation that i’ve heard Protestant pastors give for the passage.

 

[Thing]

Yes, He is the rock, but that is not the interpretation i’ve heard taught. This is:

When Jesus said:

The rock to which Christ refers is found in the immediate context:

Therefore, the rock is the truth Peter spoke, which is the revelation he received that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. Hence, they understand the passage to mean this:

That is the only interpretation that i’ve heard Protestant pastors give for the passage.

OK, Look at it this way. Jesus gathered together His disciples at Caesarea Philippi because He wanted something. Jesus intended to DO something. He intended to build a church. And as He was soon to leave them He intended to build this church on foundations of rock. This was because this church He was going to build was intended to continue His work until the end of time.
Jesus needed solid foundations.
As God Jesus knew everything. He unnecessarily therefore asks His disciples, each of them, who they think He is, who people think He is. But as God He already knows who people say He is, He knows who the disciples think He is and He knows who St. Peter thinks He is.
But He asks anyway, who do you say I am? St Peter says You are the son of the living God.
Jesus immediately says to him, Blessed art thou Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter;

Jesus as God already knows that Peter will say He is the son of God, but He asks anyway. Simon Bar-Jona answers Jesus, saying that He is the Son of God, and Jesus says back to him: Simon Bar-Jona you are rock.

And I say to thee That thou art rock [Peter],

Then Jesus says;

and upon this rock I will build my church,

Then Jesus says;

…and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Are you sure that was what Luther preached against?

My understanding is that what Luther Luther preached against, legitimately I’d add, were abuses of the practice.

I believe this to be a false claim. Errors of individuals within the Church do not invalidate the truth of Church teachings, even if individuals teach against them.

Let our recreations be innocent and pursued with moderation: and never let us suffer irregular indulgences to expose our character to derision and contempt.

–Luther

My understanding is that Luther advocated confessing sin and repenting of sin rather than paying money to indulge in sin. However, if i’m wrong, please provide a quote or two from him to demonstrate my error.

---

Even so, i do not think trying to prove that Luther advocated the practice of granting indulgences is necessary, because the Catholic Church today does not advocate it. I’m assuming the Catholic Church discontinued of the practice long ago of allowing people to pay money in order to commit sins.

This raises the question: Did the Catholic Church discontinue the practice because it was unnecessary, or because it was immoral, or for some other reason? It cannot be because it was unnecessary, for people would like to indulge in sin today as much (and perhaps even more so) than in the past. Thus, the answer is either (1) the church repented of the practice because it was immoral, or (2) the church stopped the practice because public opinion increasingly agreed that it was immoral, or (3) the church ended the granting of indulgences for some other reason.

Which of the three do you think is the truth, David?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

A few points:
I assume that you agree that Jesus has legitimate authority.
I assume that you agree that Jesus shared this authority with His apostles.

In the replacement of Judas, and in appointing of bishops, we see a means to hand on this authority.

The point is that we must trust someone or some thing in accepting something worthy of belief.

Would you believe the teachings of the apostles in 40AD?

If so, why would you not believe their legitimate successors in 2009?

That’s what i’m trying to figure out, David. Why indeed should i believe the Catholic Church is the legitimate successor of Christ’s authority? My hope is that i’ll have an answer before our discussion is through.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Have you read up on what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say about it?

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Indulgences

God bless,
Ut

Not yet, but thanks for the link, Ut. I’ll try to find the time to read up on it and let you know what i discover.



What did you learn from the resource?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

OK, Look at it this way. Jesus gathered together His disciples at Caesarea Philippi because He wanted something. Jesus intended to DO something. He intended to build a church. And as He was soon to leave them He intended to build this church on foundations of rock. This was because this church He was going to build was intended to continue His work until the end of time.
Jesus needed solid foundations.
As God Jesus knew everything. He unnecessarily therefore asks His disciples, each of them, who they think He is, who people think He is. But as God He already knows who people say He is, He knows who the disciples think He is and He knows who St. Peter thinks He is.
But He asks anyway, who do you say I am? St Peter says You are the son of the living God.
Jesus immediately says to him, Blessed art thou Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter;

Jesus as God already knows that Peter will say He is the son of God, but He asks anyway. Simon Bar-Jona answers Jesus, saying that He is the Son of God, and Jesus says back to him: Simon Bar-Jona you are rock.

And I say to thee That thou art rock [Peter],

Then Jesus says;

and upon this rock I will build my church,

Then Jesus says;

…and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Thanks, Thing for answering. Are you saying the rock of which Jesus spoke is Peter, and that we should understand Jesus’ words to mean this?

a5.

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on [Peter] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”

(Matthew 16:18)

 

[Thing]

Thanks, Thing for answering. Are you saying the rock of which Jesus spoke is Peter, and that we should understand Jesus’ words to mean this?

a5.

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on [Peter] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”

(Matthew 16:18)

]“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on [Peter] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”

Yes.

I am going to talk to you about the discovery of the tobacco mosaic virus by Martinus Beijerinck. I’ll ask you if you believe Martinus Beijerinck discovered the tobacco mosaic virus. You will answer, yes, Martinus Beijerinck discovered the tobacco mosaic virus.
And I will say to you; Congratulations! You are an umbrella! and on this umbrella I will build My Research Institute.
Thats strange.
But, can this can get stranger still, lets see; The very first time I met you, ages before our conversation, I called out to you and said, Hi Socrates, I will call you umbrella in the future.
Then when we spoke later on and you answered me correctly about the tobacco mosaic virus I said to you; You are umbrella and on this umbrella I will build My research Institute.

I already associated you earlier with umbrella, though I did not change your name to umbrella then; I waited until sometime later, after you had answered my question to my satisfaction, then I changed your name to umbrella and said ‘and on this umbrella I will build My research Institute’.

 

[davidv]

My understanding is that Luther advocated confessing sin and repenting of sin rather than paying money to indulge in sin. However, if i’m wrong, please provide a quote or two from him to demonstrate my error.

I believe that based on this comment your don’t have an accurate understanding of indulgences. Your were given a link to the relevant article in the Catholic Encyclopedia in a prior post that will help greatly with this understanding.

---

Even so, i do not think trying to prove that Luther advocated the practice of granting indulgences is necessary, because the Catholic Church today does not advocate it. I’m assuming the Catholic Church discontinued of the practice long ago of allowing people to pay money in order to commit sins.

This raises the question: Did the Catholic Church discontinue the practice because it was unnecessary, or because it was immoral, or for some other reason? It cannot be because it was unnecessary, for people would like to indulge in sin today as much (and perhaps even more so) than in the past. Thus, the answer is either (1) the church repented of the practice because it was immoral, or (2) the church stopped the practice because public opinion increasingly agreed that it was immoral, or (3) the church ended the granting of indulgences for some other reason.

The Church continues to offer indulgences for various pious practices. The abuses that Luther complained about have been corrected. To your points:
(1) Under its power to bind and loose, the practice of granting of indulgences was virtuous.
(2) Public opinion bears no weight when it come to defining morality.
(3) The Church continues to grant indulgence. In fact my parish church, Church of St. Paul in Ham Lake MN was designated a pilgrimage site. Visiting one of the pilgrimage sites was included as one of the activities for which an indulgence was granted.

Which of the three do you think is the truth, David?

None of them are true.

 

[utunumsint]

Not yet, but thanks for the link, Ut. I’ll try to find the time to read up on it and let you know what i discover.



What did you learn from the resource?

Hi Soc,

Well indulgences are fully in line with the churches teachings about sin and purgatory.

The church distinguishes between the remission of guilt for a sin, and the punishment for a sin. When you go to confession, you guilt is absolved, but you still have to pay the penalty for your sin. The church, through the power of the keys, provides people with a way to do holy acts that would pay this penalty by the use of indulgences, which are usually pius acts, prayers, etc… that always presupose a properly purified attitude free from attachment to sin. That little proviso is a big one, since very few of us can ever acheive this state here on earth. Still, you can get a partial indulgence (a kind of downpayment on your sins.

If you have confessed your sins before you have died, but you have not completely purified yourself from sinful attachements, then you get purified in purgatory after you die.

So, to sum it up, the basis for this teaching is on the church’s authority to forgive sins, assign penalties for sins, and also ways to pay for the penalties, and also in the church’s understanding of sin, and purgatory.

Hope this helps.
God bless,
Ut

P.S. Here is a quote from the articles that describes a Biblical example of this.

That this power, as the Council of Trent affirms, was exercised from the earliest times, is shown by St. Paul’s words (II Cor., ii, 5-10) in which he deals with the case of the incestuous man of Corinth. The sinner had been excluded by St. Paul’s order from the company of the faithful, but had truly repented. Hence the Apostle judges that to such a one “this rebuke is sufficient that is given by many”, and adds: “To whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ.” St. Paul had bound the guilty one in the fetters of excommunication; he now releases the penitent from this punishment by an exercise of his authority—“in the person of Christ.” Here we have all the essentials of an indulgence.

 

[pneuma07]

I don’t want to bore anyone with the details, so i’ll get to the point: I’ve come to the conclusion that one reason i got on board the good ship Protestant was that i was doubting the authority of the Catholic Church. Most of the people i met on the same voyage were of the same opinion. Several of you here have caused me to doubt my doubt, which has left me stranded on this deserted island Faithlessness.

I’d like to be rescued, but the only way i can see to get off this God-forsaken place is to decide, once and for all, whether the Catholic Church is an authority i can trust to get me home safely. That’s my goal. The method i’d like to take is to avoid heated debate, have a little fun, and take my time to really think through what each of you have to say.

So, please convince me: Tell me why i should trust the authority of the Catholic Church.

Hi Soc !

 Nice to see you again here .    I do appreciate your approach.

For my couple of cents after the valuable advice you received I could propose this simple ( hopefully not too
simplistic ) line-
I’d enjoy reading your own answers ( if this is socratically correct ).

  1) Where should any Christian authority come from ?   *My guess: Christ*

2)To whom did Christ pass authority ? My guess: the Apostles, constituted by Himself

1. Who did legitimately receive authority from the Apostles ? My guess: those they ordained to succeed them

4)Where can we find today the legitimate Christian authority ? My guess: in the legitimate successors of the Apostles.

1. Where are these successors in the western world ? My guess: _______________

Bypassing the Church and her authority, in order to get a seemingly direct contact with Christ, means IMHO, on the contrary, setting aside ( at least severely de-emphasizing) that central tenet of Christianity which is Incarnation, Christ’s own life among human beings, the Apostles’ unique experience alongside Him.

A first probable objection you could read in a protestant forum. “*He (or that faith community) is apostolic, who has the same faith as the Apostles. Who cares this so called succession ?”. *
That, as you can see, amounts to turning apostolicity into a mere subjective claim of orthodoxy, far from the objective marker it used to and should be.

 

[pneuma07]

continuing

The second frequent objection you can listen from many protestant brothers is: Our real authority, the one Jesus left us, is Scripture, and Scripture Alone.

Now: is Scripture an Authority ?
In the ancient original sense, from the latin verb: “augere”, that is “maKing grow”, hence “spiritually feeding ” most definitely YES. We are spiritually nourished , as Christians, by Scripture.

In a more derivative meaning, which has been the prevailing one for centuries: “ decision making power, entity settling disputations, judging” IMHO definitely NO. A text, differently from a living teacher, does not give you feed back.

We know Scripture as only judge ( together with reason) was a battle cry of Reformers.
But their logical and historic steps was not breaking with the Church because they had launched Sola Scriptura Rather the opposite way: Sola Scriptura with the “perspicuity of Scripture”, was launched ….because they had broken with the Church.
Sola Scriptura was for them, at that point, something like a compulsory choice.

At this point you might want to ponder these lines by John H. Newman

if the revelations and lessons in Scripture are addressed to us personally and practically, the presence among us of a formal judge and standing expositor of its words, is imperative. It is antecedently unreasonable to suppose that a book so complex, so systematic, in parts so obscure, the outcome of so many minds, times, and places, should be given us from above without the safeguard of some authority; as if it could possibly, from the nature of the case, interpret itself. Its inspiration does but guarantee its truth, not its interpretation.
How are private readers satisfactorily to distinguish what is didactic and what is historical, what is fact and what is vision, what is allegorical and what is literal, what is idiomatic and what is grammatical, what is enunciated formally and what occurs obiter, what is only of temporary and what is of lasting obligation? Such is our natural anticipation, and it is only too exactly justified in the events of the last three centuries, in the many countries where private judgment on the text of Scripture has prevailed. (On the inspiration of Scripture, ch. 15 1884)

or these

Now, my dear brethren, consider, are not these two states or acts of mind quite distinct from each other;—to believe simply what a living authority tells you, and to take a book, such as Scripture, and to use it as you please, to master it, that is, to make yourself the master of it, to interpret it for yourself, and to admit just what you choose to see in it, and nothing more?
Are not these two procedures distinct in this, that in the former you submit, in the latter you judge? At this moment I am not asking you which is the better, I am not asking whether this or that is practicable now, but are they not two ways of taking {200} up a doctrine, and not one? is not submission quite contrary to judging….
It is in vain to say that the man who judges from the Apostles’ writings, does submit to those writings in the first instance, and therefore has faith in them; else why should he refer to them at all? There is, I repeat, an essential difference between the act of submitting to a living oracle, and to his written words…. Consider how different is the confidence with which you report another’s words in his presence and in his absence. If he be absent, you boldly say that he holds so and so, or said so and so; but let him come into the room in the midst of the conversation, and your tone is immediately changed.……
Such is the only rational, consistent account of faith; but so far are Protestants from professing it, that they laugh at the very notion of it. They laugh at the notion itself of men pinning their faith (as they express themselves) upon Pope or Council; they think it simply superstitious and narrow-minded, to profess to believe just what the Church believes, and to assent to whatever she will say in time to come on matters of doctrine. ….
….If you will not look out for a living authority, and will bargain for private judgment, then say at once that you have not Apostolic faith.

Bless you Soc, … and sorry for the length .

 

[ProLifeMom]

Just sit right back and you’ll hear a tale,
A tale of a fateful trip
That started from this discussion board,
Aboard this tiny ship.

The mate was a mighty sailin’ man,
The Skipper brave and sure,
Five passengers set sail that day
For a three hour tour.
A three hour tour. sound of thunder: crack! ]

The weather started getting rough,
The tiny ship was tossed.
If not for the courage of the fearless crew,
The Protestant would be lost.
The Protestant would be lost.

The ship’s aground on the shore of this
Uncharted desert isle
With Prodigal, the Skipper too,
The Millionaire and his wife,
A movie star, ( and the rest ) the Professor and Mary Ann,
( All ) Here on Prodigal’s Isle!

GRRRREAT! Now I have that song in my head!

First of all, you are NOT stupid. Although I am in love with Jesus and his Holy Catholic Church I will not debate with you, for that is not a gift that God has given to me. I will pray for you and I will recommend that you go to this website:

www.catholicity.com

Click on “ORDER CDs”

Order the following FREE CDs:

The Conversion of Scott Hahn
Confession
The Mass Explained
John Corapi’s Amazing Story

Feel free to order the others if you want, but these are the best.
Once you are done with them (I’d listen to them more than once), feel free to share them with your Protestant friends.

Good luck and God Bless!

 

[Pax]

Soc…greetings and salutations!

I just read through the posts and am now following the thread. I may or may not have anything to contribute along the way through posting, but I am keeping you in prayer.

God bless.