Prodigal's Isle

  • Thread starter Thread starter Socrates4Jesus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lets say that repentance means remorse or sorrow. Without real sorrow for your sins there is no point in going to confession. You won’t be absolved, even if the words are spoken to you, unless you are actually sorry. So you repent then you confess your sins, as per the Scriptures, then you are forgiven or absolved and your sins are blotted out.
Then you do your penance, which may be prayer, or it may be anything, it may just be a case of shutting up and listening to what God is trying to say to you.🙂
Your forgiveness or absolution do not depend on doing the penance, yopu are forgiven at the words of absolution, your penance is your voluntary attempt to conform to Him.
I see that what i call an act of repentance, you call an act of penance. The important thing, i’m sure you agree, is that you and i should always try to, “go and sin no more”.

👍
 
Yes, a too-clever reaction. So you feel there is ambiguity. Do you ask what the first Christians thought of that verse. The other one.
I’m certain the first Christians believed John 1:1, 14 to mean what you and i both agree it means. I’m uncertain that Matthew 16:18 means what you say it means, or what Protestants tell me it means.

The thing i’m getting at, Thing is that the reason why i’m uncertain is that Jesus’ words in Matthew 16 are ambiguous. They require a correct interpretation. John’s words in John 1 are not so unclear. Many readers (Catholic and Protestant) have little difficulty understanding the meaning and do not require someone to tell them the correct interpretation.
 
I see that what i call an act of repentance, you call an act of penance. The important thing, i’m sure you agree, is that you and i should always try to, “go and sin no more”.

👍
Absolutely. And if Indulgences strengthen and help people ‘go and sin no more’ then them things is ok with mee too.
🙂
 
I’m certain the first Christians believed John 1:1, 14 to mean what you and i both agree it means. I’m uncertain that Matthew 16:18 means what you say it means, or what Protestants tell me it means.

The thing i’m getting at, Thing is that the reason why i’m uncertain is that Jesus’ words in Matthew 16 are ambiguous. They require a correct interpretation. John’s words in John 1 are not so unclear. Many readers (Catholic and Protestant) have little difficulty understanding the meaning and do not require someone to tell them the correct interpretation.
When and where did that alternate interpretation of Matt first appear?
 
When and where did that alternate interpretation of Matt first appear?
I suppose from the moment the text was first distributed and read in the first century AD. Anyone reading it might come to the conclusion that (a4) or (a5) or (a6) might be the intended meaning. Don’t you think?
 
I suppose from the moment the text was first distributed and read in the first century AD. Anyone reading it might come to the conclusion that (a4) or (a5) or (a6) might be the intended meaning. Don’t you think?
You mean when St. Peter first read it to a congregation gathered for prayer and the breaking of the bread?
When St. John read it to the assembled in the church? When St. Polycarp studied from St. John, when St. Irenaeus heard it read while studying under St. Polycarp?

There is no need to guess what happened or what the first christians believed. They have left stuff written…
 
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. …
You make an extremely good point. Interesting that Socrates himself agrees:

I cannot help feeling, Phaedrus, that writing has one grave fault in common with painting. For the creations of the painter stand there true as life, and yet if you ask them a question they maintain a solemn silence.  And the same may be said of written words. You would imagine that they had intelligence, but if, out of a desire to learn, you ask for an explanation of something that has been said, they produce the same unvarying meaning, over and over again.  And once they have been written down, they promiscuously knock about the world anywhere at all, among those who understand them, and equally among those for whom they are completely unsuitable.  They do not know to whom they should or should not speak; and if they are mistreated or unjustly slandered, they always require the author of their being to rescue them.  For the book cannot protect or defend itself.

*(Phaedrus 275)
  • I suppose, then, that the Protestant objection is that the Holy Spirit protects one from misinterpreting the words of Christ, for He said this:
“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you.”

(John 16:12-14)
 
You mean when St. Peter first read it to a congregation gathered for prayer and the breaking of the bread?
When St. John read it to the assembled in the church? When St. Polycarp studied from St. John, when St. Irenaeus heard it read while studying under St. Polycarp?

There is no need to guess what happened or what the first christians believed. They have left stuff written…
Yes, that’s what i was thinking. In the case of Peter and Paul and John and others, i suppose they would write to them or ask them to send someone to answer their questions when they disagreed with one another as to the correct interpretation of the text.
 
What has the spirit said?

St. Irenaeus
“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).
Tertullian

“[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).

The Little Labyrinth

“Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter” (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).

Cyprian of Carthage

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

“Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church” (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (ibid., 59:14).

Eusebius of Caesarea

“Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]” (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).

Pope Julius I

“[The] judgment [against Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. . . . Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. . . . What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you” (Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], contained in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20–35).

Council of Sardica

“*f any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province” (Canon 3 [A.D. 342]).

Optatus

“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Epiphanius of Salamis

“At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 375]).*
 
GRRRREAT! Now I have that song in my head!:rotfl:

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!😉
Thank you, PLM! Your prayers are desired.

👍

And yes, ignorant is perhaps more accurate than stupid. I’m indeed ignorant of the truth about the trustworthiness of the Catholic Church.
 
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.
Always good to have a friend like you near, Pax.

🙂
 
Socrates,

I am pretty new around here so I do not know where you are coming from theologically; but, regardless of that I think you have your answer already. You have come this far, far enough to give it serious personal consideration. That may be the most compelling evidence you ultimatrely need. If God has lead you this far, it is likely time to leap.

All my best . . .
Thanks for the advice, Convert.
 
What has the spirit said?

St. Irenaeus
“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).
Tertullian

“[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).

The Little Labyrinth

“Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter” (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).

Cyprian of Carthage

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

“Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church” (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (ibid., 59:14).

Eusebius of Caesarea

“Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]” (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).

Pope Julius I

“[The] judgment [against Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. . . . Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. . . . What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you” (Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], contained in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20–35).

Council of Sardica

“*f any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province” (Canon 3 [A.D. 342]).

Optatus

“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Epiphanius of Salamis

“At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 375]).*

Yes, Thing i appreciate that the early church would continue to train new leaders to carry on the evangelization and teaching that Christ Himself began. I think the concern that Protestants have, and that i also appreciate, is twofold:


  1. *]They are concerned that these men, not knowing Christ personally, are more susceptible to error.
    *]They are concerned that some of these men are not representative of the true believers of the early church, and that the Catholic Church has preserved the writings of only those that agree with them, and not of those who believed as Protestants do today.
 
Hey Soc!

As you see, I’ve found my way over here, although I can’t promise I’ll be particularly active. Real life has me a bit snowed most of the time.

I think that this - the question of authority- is an excellent question to be exploring, because, in a sense, everything else turns on it. Did Jesus establish a church? And can we find that church today. …
What’s up doc? Good to see ya’! Please tell me: How has life been treating you?

🙂
 
… I’d point out a few passages that I think are relevant for your reflection.
  1. The first is the passage about Peter (Matthew 16: 13-19):
A couple of notes. The first is that he changes Peter’s name in this passage. Throughout the Bible, we see that when God changes someone’s name, He does it for a particular purpose - and the name He chooses is particularly significant. For example, he changes Abram (exalted father) to Abraham (father of a multitude) when he makes a covenant with him to make him the father of many nations and to be the God of his decendants (Genesis 17). He changes Jacob (“he takes by the heel” - a not-so-nice euphamism for a cheater, a deceiver, a supplanter) to Israel (“he who strives with God” or, alternatively, “God strives”) after Jacob had a particularly interesting wrestling match with God. Jesus’ own name (Yeshua, Joshua, “God Saves”, see here), and his other titles (Christ = The Anointed One in Greek, Emmanuel = God with Us) have particularly significant meaning as well. So when Jesus, who is God, changes Simon’s name to Peter, to Rock, that has significance.
The second is what follows. After changing Simon’s name to Rock, and saying that he would establish his Church on this Rock, he gives him a special and unique role - the role of a steward. It is reminiscent (and I would argue intentionally so) of a passage in Isaiah:

So not only did Jesus change Simon’s name, then use that very name, but then he gave Peter a specific role - the role of the steward - within that Church. …
Hey, Doc:

Did He change Simon’s name to big Rocky or to little Stone? I’m not certain what words the Latin translation of Matthew’s gospel use, but here’s what one Greek scholar has to say about the Greek translation:

In the Greek, there is a play on words in this statement: “You are Peter petros, a stone], and on this rock petra, a massive rock] I will build my church.” It is upon Christ Himself that the Church is built.

Why do you think Jesus would call Simon petros (a little stone) and then say he would build His church on petra (a ginormous rock)?

I know, tough question!
Ain’t i a stinker?

http://www.iconarchive.com/icons/sykonist/looney-tunes/Bugs-Bunny-Carrot-256x256.png
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Yes, Thing i appreciate that the early church would continue to train new leaders to carry on the evangelization and teaching that Christ Himself began. I think the concern that Protestants have, and that i also appreciate, is twofold:


  1. *]They are concerned that these men, not knowing Christ personally, are more susceptible to error.
    *]They are concerned that some of these men are not representative of the true believers of the early church, and that the Catholic Church has preserved the writings of only those that agree with them, and not of those who believed as Protestants do today.

  1. Its not my problem, Socrates. Protestants have outdone themselves with those types of arguments.
    1. Protestants did not know Christ personally, having arisen 1500 years after Christs death.
      St John the Apostle did know Christ, in fact, St. John was the one discribed as the disciple whom Jesus loved. St. John taught St. Polycarp, St. Polycarp taught St. Irenaeus. So if protestants were actually worried about your point no. 1 you would imagine they would be falling over each other to find out what St. John the Apostle of Christ taught St. Polycarp and St. Irenaeus.
    2. Christ said, quite clearly that His Church would not die, He would preserve it. Therefore it should be no surprise to actually find a real Church with a real history which stretches from the Apostles and Christ right up to the present day. As opposed to the protestant argument that the church Christ established in 33 AD left no history, records, trace, or sign of itself, an invisible church with an invisible history will give protestants invisible doctrines. And thats what we find, protestantism has no creed, no doctrines, and no Apostolic history.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Was Jesus said, "And I tell you that
you are Peter, and on this rock
I will build my church," was He
trying to be ambiguous?
 
Its not my problem, Socrates. Protestants have outdone themselves with those types of arguments. …
True, it’s no problem for you. You being a partisan already have the truth and find no need to wonder. Me, i’m a philosopher and keenly aware of my ignorance. I’m still looking, still asking questions, still seeking answers. It seems you have more in common with the Protestants i know than i have: You’re convinced you are right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top