Prodigal's Isle

[michaelsmth626]

I do think we need to note the steps that are continually repeated for accepting the Catholic faith.

1. The first step is to establish Peter as having authority beyond any other biblical figure. The capability to define doctrine. Not just the reflection of the NT teachings but doctrine no even mentioned in scripture like Marionoligy.
2. Next is to establish that this gift could be and was passed to his appointed successors.

3)The next step becomes easier if the first are accepted, that is the the separation of the laity from the priest. By referring to the bridges just crossed the third is a piece of cake. Bridges and bridge building as some have mentioned earlier is where the word papal and pope is derived from. Papal root word meaning bridge builder.

Congratulation you have just reestablish the Old Covenant.
We have the Levite’s AKA catholic priest the successors to Peter. The history of the church that is held up as doctrine by these priest. And a host of offerings that can be made, including the most important of all, the receiving of Jesus in the form of the Eucharist to the people. Effectively taking Jesus down from the cross and serving Him, the atonement for sin to the people. The complete function of the Old Covenant complete with mediators in the form of men. These priest protect this right of passage and atest that no one else has the perfect bread from heaven that can only be found inside the new temple of god the catholic church.

Taken a step further only the Levite’s AKA catholic priest the successors to Peter, know the proper translation of the word of God because only they possess the HS that is of Apostolic origin [see step 1 and 2] Now it is much more evident why catholics faith lies in the church and not the Holy Spirit. Why they can possibly see scripture in any other light than that presented by the fathers. Did you say you would like the HS just step over here and we’ll baptize you with the HS, no problem, we have all authority on earth as well as heaven.

I have made my point, as to why I question the catholic faith. With the priest hood the HS is of no value at all. You just go ask a priest for guidance. It would seem that the greatest gift to the world provided by the Father threw Jesus “the Holy Spirit” is made completely null and void by the function of the church. Dont you think that’s why Jesus made the temple of no value? He tore the veil between the sanctuary and the Holy of Hollies opening access to God and man threw Him in the power of the HS instead of a mediator? Or is mankind sill subject to a gilded cage defined by less than perfect men?
All that I have pointed out is contrary to the NT teachings from a mediator between Christ and men to the HS leading men. To we are all born of the same Spirit.

Do you see why as I pointed out in Acts 10 that there is a lot going on. It is not simply Peter, an Angel is involved, a vision from the Lord is involved and the movement of the salvation received threw the HS is seen passing from the Jwes alone to all the rest of mankind. I do not think this was something Peter commanded. He was at its center but the passage is clear he Peter receives his marching orders from Heaven not his own desire or wisdom.

 

[paul_c]

http://www.capmac.org/images/PC-Mac.jpg

Well, i will have an easier time doing this if you will take me by the hand and lead me. We might as well do so with the issue that concerns me at the moment–the infallibility of the Apostolic Successors. Tell me; who was the earliest of the Church Fathers who made such a claim of possessing perfect wisdom?

here is the tract on that: catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202sbs.asp

There are many, many references to the primary of Peter listed in Jurgen’s The Faith of the Early Church Fathers, Including Clement’ letter to the Corinthians in 96AD, St. Ignatius, Letter to the Romans in 110AD, Hermas" the Shepard from 140 AD, Dionyss form 170 AD (Fragment in Eusebius history of the Chruch), St. polycrates letter to Victor in 190 AD and St. Irenaeus Against Heresies in 190AD.

So there are quite a few consistent references within 130 years of Peter’s death, starting wtih Clement, who was the 4th Pope.
;

 

[paul_c]

I do think we need to note the steps that are continually repeated for accepting the Catholic faith.

1. The first step is to establish Peter as having authority beyond any other biblical figure. The capability to define doctrine. Not just the reflection of the NT teachings but doctrine no even mentioned in scripture like Marionoligy.
2. Next is to establish that this gift could be and was passed to his appointed successors.

3)The next step becomes easier if the first are accepted, that is the the separation of the laity from the priest. By referring to the bridges just crossed the third is a piece of cake. Bridges and bridge building as some have mentioned earlier is where the word papal and pope is derived from. Papal root word meaning bridge builder.

Congratulation you have just reestablish the Old Covenant.
We have the Levite’s AKA catholic priest the successors to Peter. The history of the church that is held up as doctrine by these priest. And a host of offerings that can be made, including the most important of all, the receiving of Jesus in the form of the Eucharist to the people. Effectively taking Jesus down from the cross and serving Him, the atonement for sin to the people. The complete function of the Old Covenant complete with mediators in the form of men. These priest protect this right of passage and atest that no one else has the perfect bread from heaven that can only be found inside the new temple of god the catholic church.

Taken a step further only the Levite’s AKA catholic priest the successors to Peter, know the proper translation of the word of God because only they possess the HS that is of Apostolic origin [see step 1 and 2] Now it is much more evident why catholics faith lies in the church and not the Holy Spirit. Why they can possibly see scripture in any other light than that presented by the fathers. Did you say you would like the HS just step over here and we’ll baptize you with the HS, no problem, we have all authority on earth as well as heaven.

I have made my point, as to why I question the catholic faith. With the priest hood the HS is of no value at all. You just go ask a priest for guidance. It would seem that the greatest gift to the world provided by the Father threw Jesus “the Holy Spirit” is made completely null and void by the function of the church. Dont you think that’s why Jesus made the temple of no value? He tore the veil between the sanctuary and the Holy of Hollies opening access to God and man threw Him in the power of the HS instead of a mediator? Or is mankind sill subject to a gilded cage defined by less than perfect men?
All that I have pointed out is contrary to the NT teachings from a mediator between Christ and men to the HS leading men. To we are all born of the same Spirit.

Do you see why as I pointed out in Acts 10 that there is a lot going on. It is not simply Peter, an Angel is involved, a vision from the Lord is involved and the movement of the salvation received threw the HS is seen passing from the Jwes alone to all the rest of mankind. I do not think this was something Peter commanded. He was at its center but the passage is clear he Peter receives his marching orders from Heaven not his own desire or wisdom.

The Church doesn’t negate the Holy Spirit, It is its instrument for teaching the Faith in a consistent and true fashion. Do you deny that Jesus intended to build a church on Earth? If you do, you are arguing against Scripture. Surely you are aware of Matthew 16:18. And surely you are aware that he appointed Apostles to teach the faith. If your theology was correct, then he wouldn’t have done that. The spirit would have taught people directly, with no need for Apostles to translate and spread the faith. And there would be no need for you to evangelize, either.

And notice in Acts 10, the Angel you speak of didn’t provide the Holy Spirit to Cornelius, he told him to send for Peter, representing the Church. And hes Peter recieved his marching orders from Heaven and did not make them up on his own. That’s the whole point. He’s inspired by the Holy Spirit to spread the Gospel. that is his role. He doesn’t make up stuff. He explains what he has been taught.

 

[Pax]

I do think we need to note the steps that are continually repeated for accepting the Catholic faith.

1. The first step is to establish Peter as having authority beyond any other biblical figure. The capability to define doctrine. Not just the reflection of the NT teachings but doctrine no even mentioned in scripture like Marionoligy.
2. Next is to establish that this gift could be and was passed to his appointed successors.

3)The next step becomes easier if the first are accepted, that is the the separation of the laity from the priest. By referring to the bridges just crossed the third is a piece of cake. Bridges and bridge building as some have mentioned earlier is where the word papal and pope is derived from. Papal root word meaning bridge builder.

Congratulation you have just reestablish the Old Covenant.
We have the Levite’s AKA catholic priest the successors to Peter. The history of the church that is held up as doctrine by these priest. And a host of offerings that can be made, including the most important of all, the receiving of Jesus in the form of the Eucharist to the people. Effectively taking Jesus down from the cross and serving Him, the atonement for sin to the people. The complete function of the Old Covenant complete with mediators in the form of men. These priest protect this right of passage and atest that no one else has the perfect bread from heaven that can only be found inside the new temple of god the catholic church.

Taken a step further only the Levite’s AKA catholic priest the successors to Peter, know the proper translation of the word of God because only they possess the HS that is of Apostolic origin [see step 1 and 2] Now it is much more evident why catholics faith lies in the church and not the Holy Spirit. Why they can possibly see scripture in any other light than that presented by the fathers. Did you say you would like the HS just step over here and we’ll baptize you with the HS, no problem, we have all authority on earth as well as heaven.

I have made my point, as to why I question the catholic faith. With the priest hood the HS is of no value at all. You just go ask a priest for guidance. It would seem that the greatest gift to the world provided by the Father threw Jesus “the Holy Spirit” is made completely null and void by the function of the church. Dont you think that’s why Jesus made the temple of no value? He tore the veil between the sanctuary and the Holy of Hollies opening access to God and man threw Him in the power of the HS instead of a mediator? Or is mankind sill subject to a gilded cage defined by less than perfect men?
All that I have pointed out is contrary to the NT teachings from a mediator between Christ and men to the HS leading men. To we are all born of the same Spirit.

Do you see why as I pointed out in Acts 10 that there is a lot going on. It is not simply Peter, an Angel is involved, a vision from the Lord is involved and the movement of the salvation received threw the HS is seen passing from the Jwes alone to all the rest of mankind. I do not think this was something Peter commanded. He was at its center but the passage is clear he Peter receives his marching orders from Heaven not his own desire or wisdom.

michaelsmth626 in Christ,

Perhaps settling the issue of the New Covenant priesthood would be helpful to you. Your conclusions about the implications of having a New Covenant priesthood are severely misplaced. If there truly is a New Covenant priesthood than a lot of what you are thinking is pretty hard to imagine or to entertain. No one for example imagines a re-establishment of the Levitical priesthood. Moreover, you understanding of Catholic teaching on the Eucharist seems a bit bizarre. I would suggest reading the following thread that Socrates for Jesus started on the Eucharist. You would find thems very illuminating:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.phpt=223770&highlight=Eucharist+Socrates+for+Jesus

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.phpt=231423&highlight=Eucharist+Socrates+for+Jesus

If you would like to discuss the New Covenant priesthood we can do so. It is obvious that you do not believe that there is a New Covenant ministerial priesthood.

 

[michaelsmth626]

There is a new priest hood my point is that yours is a carbon copy of the old.
I dont deny the NT church, I deny that it is structured in the same way the old was.

Well Paul like I said, an Angels message and the Lords vision along with the proof in the pudding, that the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit by hearing the word is all relevant. Would you care to point out all the other instances of Angels in the NT?

If you want to believe that it was all dependent on Peter that’s is your complete right.
But you completely miss the message. The message was not Peter is the pope.
The message was that all things are in Gods hands not the hands of men. Jesus chose 12 to establish the NT church, not another Levitical line offering Jesus at the alter instead of bulls and lambs.

Heb 10:8 Previously saying, “Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them ” (which are offered according to the law), 9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.”** He takes away the first that He may establish the second. 10** By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all****.

11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
15 But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before,
16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,”[c] 17 then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”[d] 18 Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.

 

[pneuma07]

Then you are more prepared to get off at Parish Junction than am i. For i’m currently at a loss to know how to bridge the gap between trusting Christ and the biblical authors to trusting their successors. Maybe you can tell my why you believe in the Apostolic Successors as much as you believe in Christ and Peter. Or do you trust the current Pope, for example, but not trust him as much as you trust Christ and Peter. What is your degree of trust in the Pontiff of pontiffs? And more importantly, why is your degree of trust in the P of ps?

Dear Soc,

you expressed it so well answering Pax.

Trust is key. Why should we trust the leadership of the catholic church today ? .
Jesus’ trust in Peter and his fellows, was followed by these fellows’ trust in a group of successors. If you trust Peter you should trust them. And so on… Until B16 and the 4 thousand or so bishops in communion with him and with each other. Who are therefore IMHO the most reliable living source on Revelation.

.

A likely objection is that at any generation something can get lost, and after two millennia one could expect much of the original reliability disappeared along such a long way….

You could answer we are starting from Jesus here, not just a friend of ours. If Peter and fellows established successors, and the principle of succession, and if you trust Peter as acting according to Jesus’ will, that means the idea does work. In other words, this is the way in the divine design to guard the deposit of the faith under the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

I trust them, the college of bishops and its present leader B16, to the point that I believe they are equipped to tackle the questions of our century under the assistance of the HS , according the model of Acts 15. At the end of the day I am confident it can always be shown that the Catholic Apostolic church doesn’t teach anything contrary to Scripture. Which she guards.
I trust them being the organ of that infallibility , ie protection from authoritatively teaching error, that IMHO has to be the peculiarity of the Church built by Jesus and guarding His message. Where can this organ be if not in them ?

 

[pneuma07]

there is just that Gospel delivered by the Apostles, no new one can be accepted in a christian perspective. So, that I like it or not, assisted as I can be in my discernment, I pass through the best disciples of the Apostles to get the message of the Incarnated Logos.

Agreed.

This is no minor agreement.

 

[pneuma07]

From my experience, the Fundamentalist and Evangelical reasoning goes like this:

1. 
   *]God does not contradict Himself
   *]What He said through the Apostles of centuries ago will not contradict what He says through His spokesmen today
   *]If what a spokesman says today contradicts what the Apostles said centuries ago, then he does not speak for God
   *]Some of the spokesmen (even some so-called early Church Fathers) of the Catholic Church contradicted what the Apostles taught about the requirement of baptism for salvation
   
   Therefore,
   A. Some of the spokesmen of the Catholic Church do not speak for God.
   
   The cure for this error (if it is an error) might be to show that what the early Church Fathers taught is the same as what the biblical authors taught. Don’t you think?

1. 
   You cannot prove it by doing everything. You can do experiments.
   To a protestant brother conceding the post-apostolic church has never taught against water regenerative baptism, you could ask to show you how blatantly the trust of scripture teaches contrary to it. I bet the most he can do is showing Scripture is not perspicuous on the issue. Which goes against the claim of the perspicuity of Scripture, which appears essential to protestantisms.
   Another protestant brother will give you a picture which is a little different from the first one…We had and will have interesting ad hoc threads on that.
   
   Since what we can see in the post-scriptural witnesses is that they would consider as baptism water regenerative baptism, why should you trust on this point the different readings proposed in the last centuries by many protestant brothers ?/
   
   My bible against his bible is not the way we get Paris junction. IMHO we get there by accepting that that method is not exactly what we are expected to do.
   We get Paris Junction when we trust those trusted by those trusted by…….who were trusted by Peter who was trusted by Jesus. You can, and have to, do experiments with your reason about that.
   You can take the said water regenerative baptism as a first important test. You can study and have a thread of your own on the question, to become personally persuaded that water regenerative baptism is in Scripture, after all.
   
   What we cannot do is checking anything.
   Any single piece of doctrinal and moral statement. Any difference between the Church an the challenger of the moment.
   Trusting someone means precisely I do not have to verify anytime anything she does, claims, says.
   Once I trust.
   
   The common protestant attitude is.
   
   *the fathers would teach contrary on point X from my interpratation of Scripture.
   
   Therefore, the fathers were wrong. i prove there was corruption.*
   
   Isn’t it ?
   
   The attitude I’d propose Soc, is this
   . If I see a tenet of mine is contrary to the thrust of the fathers since the first ones, I formulate the hypothesis that my individual present interpretation can be wrong.
   
   Maybe I am proposing a revolution.

 

[pneuma07]

Yes, you might be right. My judgment might be flawed, as well. But it seems to me that if the judgment of the early Church Fathers is as perfect as the original Apostles, then they will be able to show that by reason and by revelation. That is, they will be able to provide good reasons, in their writings, for me to believe that what they received is from heaven and not hell. Perhaps, then, we should take a closer look at an epistle of one of the Church Fathers? I know we’ve talked about doing so, but i have not yet committed myself to the task. If you think this a good idea, please let me know.

Some caveat on the Church Fathers seems expedient now. The single father does not have any claim to infallibility. Some aren’t even bishops.
They are the guys who turned out to be influential in the exposition and in the development of Christian doctrine. They are the precious witness for us to what the Church of their time would mind and would teach. How the development of the doctrine took place in the first centuries, answering questions as they would come up.

In order to get a picture, we should consider the thrust of them, in their historic sequence.
BTW , aspects of some fathers are subject to exegetical disputations. Any text can be, as you know.

 

[pneuma07]

May God richly bless you as your words have blessed me, P7!

And your words are very rewarding. Thanks.

In Christ.
P7

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I do think we need to note the steps that are continually repeated for accepting the Catholic faith.

1. The first step is to establish Peter as having authority beyond any other biblical figure. The capability to define doctrine. Not just the reflection of the NT teachings but doctrine no even mentioned in scripture like Marionoligy.
2. Next is to establish that this gift could be and was passed to his appointed successors.

3)The next step becomes easier if the first are accepted, that is the the separation of the laity from the priest. By referring to the bridges just crossed the third is a piece of cake. Bridges and bridge building as some have mentioned earlier is where the word papal and pope is derived from. Papal root word meaning bridge builder.
…

Well, Michael, i open to hearing what you have to say to show that (1) is not true. I mean, if i’m setting myself up for a train wreck, please tell me why!

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… I have made my point, as to why I question the catholic faith. …

Yes, but you’ve made your points with the others, not with me. Am i not the one who hasn’t made up my mind? If they have already made up their minds, why not talk with me?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… Do you see why as I pointed out in Acts 10 that there is a lot going on. It is not simply Peter, an Angel is involved, a vision from the Lord is involved and the movement of the salvation received threw the HS is seen passing from the Jwes alone to all the rest of mankind. I do not think this was something Peter commanded. He was at its center but the passage is clear he Peter receives his marching orders from Heaven not his own desire or wisdom.

You appear to have a lot to say, Michael. I’m willing to listen, if you’ll only take the time.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

here is the tract on that: catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202sbs.asp

There are many, many references to the primary of Peter listed in Jurgen’s The Faith of the Early Church Fathers, Including Clement’ letter to the Corinthians in 96AD, St. Ignatius, Letter to the Romans in 110AD, Hermas" the Shepard from 140 AD, Dionyss form 170 AD (Fragment in Eusebius history of the Chruch), St. polycrates letter to Victor in 190 AD and St. Irenaeus Against Heresies in 190AD.

So there are quite a few consistent references within 130 years of Peter’s death, starting wtih Clement, who was the 4th Pope.
;

I’m more interested in dialog with others than in reading by myself. You see, Socrates believed dialog to be the best way to keep oneself from deception and misunderstanding. In fact, he believed reading to sometimes be one of the worst ways to discover the truth!

I’ve found that to be the case by experience. So rather than give me a link that will keep me away from the forum for months, why not tell me what you yourself have learned from the link that you are so confident will help me?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Dear Soc,

you expressed it so well answering Pax.

Trust is key. Why should we trust the leadership of the catholic church today ? .
Jesus’ trust in Peter and his fellows, was followed by these fellows’ trust in a group of successors. If you trust Peter you should trust them. And so on… Until B16 and the 4 thousand or so bishops in communion with him and with each other. Who are therefore IMHO the most reliable living source on Revelation …

Yes, but i find that the same God who chose David as His king over his people also chose Saul. The contrast between the two men is like day and night. How do you know, then, that a successor of a successor of a successor is guaranteed to be a David and not a Saul? How do you know that such an Apostle, many times removed, will always be a Peter and not a Judas?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… A likely objection is that at any generation something can get lost, and after two millennia one could expect much of the original reliability disappeared along such a long way.

You could answer we are starting from Jesus here, not just a friend of ours. If Peter and fellows established successors, and the principle of succession, and if you trust Peter as acting according to Jesus’ will, that means the idea does work. In other words, this is the way in the divine design to guard the deposit of the faith under the assistance of the Holy Spirit. …

Perhaps, but i’m not yet convinced. When Jesus said this"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

(Matthew 16:19)

you made a convincing argument that Christ was speaking to Peter alone and ***not ***to the other Apostles. Reason was on your side, for the context of the passage made it clear that what you said is true.

Now you appear to be contradicting yourself. You seem to be saying that these words of our Lord apply not only to Peter but to all Apostolic Successors, as well! So please tell me. Which interpretation of Matthew 16:19 am i to believe–your former or you later?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… I trust them, the college of bishops and its present leader B16, to the point that I believe they are equipped to tackle the questions of our century under the assistance of the HS , according the model of Acts 15. At the end of the day I am confident it can always be shown that the Catholic Apostolic church doesn’t teach anything contrary to Scripture. Which she guards. I trust them being the organ of that infallibility , ie protection from authoritatively teaching error, that IMHO has to be the peculiarity of the Church built by Jesus and guarding His message. Where can this organ be if not in them ?

I’d like to have the same confidence you have and be certain either that i can, or cannot, trust them.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc in Christ,

You raise an important point. Peter does not make up the truth and then get it rubber stamped by God. The truth is what it is when it comes to doctrine in matters of faith and morals. The truth is Jesus and the truth comes from the divine source of God. We can only receive, determine, and discern the truth. The Church simply receives protection from teaching falsely in the power to bind and loose.

God bless.

Thanks, Pax. What you say made me think and brought me back to the truth i thought i’d lost. For your words remind me of Jesus’ words:Then Jesus cried out, “When a man believes in me, he does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me.”

Pax:

I still have not quite wrapped my mind around this binding and loosing concept. Still trying to figure out just what it is. Perhaps it will help if we consider an analogy, as these, by way of comparison, often make the truth clearer to me.

It seems that binding and loosing is a matter of governing the Body of Christ. That being said, please consider with me how binding and loosing might apply to the government of the United States. In this country, there are three branches of government, each that has differing powers of binding and loosing.

• The legislative branch might be said to bind and loose by creating doctrine (or by legislating laws)
• The executive branch might be said to bind and loose by enforcing doctrine (or enforcing the legislated laws)
• The judicial branch might be said to bind and loose by interpreting doctrine (or interpreting the legislated laws)

So what i am now wondering is this: Did Peter bind and loose by creating and by enforcing and by interpreting doctrine (i.e., by all three)? Or did he bind and loose by two of the three (and by what two)? Or did he bind and loose by only one of the three (and by which one)?

 

[LionHeart777]

Nick:

Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly is a leap of faith?

Hmm. I think your “ignorance” may have helped me to discover my own.

let me look at what I wrote and insert comments (in blue):

If I may add a thought. Sometimes, trying to find the absolute truth on something can be frustrating generally speaking. In the end, I think it takes a leap of faith" ". Sort of like the Gospel, itself. I believe it is the absolute truththe Gospel, that is, and there is sufficient evidence to prove it I believe, but it takes that leap of faith too, I think. One must will to believe it I guess you could say and I believe God makes this possible. May I suggest, maybe, praying for wisdom, looking at the evidence, reasoning with those here who are fountains of knowledge (as you have been) and when you believe that God is leading you somewhere, take that leap of faithTo wherever you believe God is guiding you. Don’t agonize Easier said than done, I know.

“Leap of faith”: This definitely sounds a bit cliche. I don’t know if this was my original meaning/ intent, but allow me to use an analogy (modified out of poor memory and to fit the OP) that was passed along to me by a wise Protestant. It seems that in order to get off of this island you are going to have to get in a boat (or, walk across a bridge) At this point, it looks like 2 different vessels are being offered to escort you off the island. You are trying to believe that one of the vessels is trustworthy. Once you come to belief, one has to take “a leap of faith” to get off the island; that is one has to actually get in a boat. Back to the analogy of my wise friend, I can say I believe something but when asked to get in the boat (in this case say a flood is coming and you need to be saved.) In this case I will the original analogy: The flood is the wrath of God and the boat is captained by Christ. One can say, “Lord, I believe that this boat will get me off of the island.” Perhaps, the Lord might respond, “Well then, get in!” The one in danger says “oh no, I’m not getting in that boat.” Faith get’s in the boat ( to paraphrase my friend.) Therefore, I believe that the “leap of faith” might be the actual jumping aboard. Now, you are not trying to turn to God here, so I used that analogy as the leap of faith–I will say in passing that Protestants and Catholics would differ on the process one takes (normally) to jump on the boat (and how to stay in-or if it is possible to go overboard). Anyway, you have a couple of boats (Protestantism and Catholicism) offered to get off of your little island, but there seems (from my flawed human perspective) to be no storm in sight as you’re just trying to better follow God. So, there is just Soc4Jesus confused about how to get off of the island. I guess, the “leap of faith” would be the actual “leaping” on to 1 of the boats. I’m saying ultimately , it will take that to get off the island. But, I trust that you’ll make it when the timing is right and I don’t want to pressure you .

Peace,

Nick

 

[paul_c]

Pax:

I still have not quite wrapped my mind around this binding and loosing concept. Still trying to figure out just what it is. Perhaps it will help if we consider an analogy, as these, by way of comparison, often make the truth clearer to me.

It seems that binding and loosing is a matter of governing the Body of Christ. That being said, please consider with me how binding and loosing might apply to the government of the United States. In this country, there are three branches of government, each that has differing powers of binding and loosing.

• The legislative branch might be said to bind and loose by creating doctrine (or by legislating laws)
• The executive branch might be said to bind and loose by enforcing doctrine (or enforcing the legislated laws)
• The judicial branch might be said to bind and loose by interpreting doctrine (or interpreting the legislated laws)

So what i am now wondering is this: Did Peter bind and loose by creating and by enforcing and by interpreting doctrine (i.e., by all three)? Or did he bind and loose by two of the three (and by what two)? Or did he bind and loose by only one of the three (and by which one)?

Let me try to explain using your analogy.

The Pope never operates as the legislative branch in terms of doctrine. All doctrines came from Jesus and the Pope merely teaches what he has heard from his predecessors in this regard

The Pope does operate as the legislative branch in terms of church practice: How the faith is brought to the people. This is because different people from different times and cultures learn in different ways. So the Pope and his fellow bishops are always evolving Church practice

The Pope absolutely operates as the Judicial branch, interpreting the truths for the people.

The pope operates as the executive branch in a more limited fashion. He has no temporal power to force anyone to do anything. No army. He levies no taxes. Everything is paid for through donation. The only power he has is to exert moral authority and to choose whether to give or deny people the sacraments. Thus, he decides who is a bishop and who may recieve the sacraments.

Others can add or subtract, but I think this is a fair representation of the Catholic position.