purgatory

[paul_c]

If one went into a church today, and discovered that the people gathered there did not believe in the papacy, did not believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Bodily Assumption of Mary, purgatory, indulgences, did not believe in the concept of transubstantiation replete with the communion host’s total change in accidence and substance, and had no tabernacles on the altars in their churches, would one think he or she was in a “Roman Catholic” church?

Of course not. Yet, the church before 325 AD had none of these beliefs, either. While they called themselves “catholics” at that time, they would not have had any idea what “Roman Catholic” meant.

Your statements are completely untrue.

The Papacy was recognized prior to even Pentacost, when Peter led his brother apostles in replacing Judas with Matthias. in 80AD, St. Clement the 4th pope, wrote a letter to the Corinthians, claiming the priority of Rome and givingn them spiritual direction. In 110 AD, Saint Ignatius of Antioch wrote a letter to the Romans, acknowledging the Primacy of the Pope. there are many, many other examples prior to 325 AD.

Now prior to 313Ad when the edict of Milan was issued and Catholic Christianity became legal in the Roman empire, mass was held in private homes not Churches. However, the flow of the mass was very similar to what it is today. In fact, here is Justin Martyr’s recounting from 150 AD: from this source: earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html
.

CHAPTER LXVI – OF THE EUCHARIST.

And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

CHAPTER LXVII – WEEKLY WORSHIP OF THE CHRIS- TIANS.

And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

Notice it talks about transubstantiation as well.
As for purgatory, it was also discussed by the early church fathers. The eptitath of Abercius form AD 180-200 asks for he prayer for his soul, a request only valid if there is a purgatory. A similar early christian Epitath of Pectorias make sthe same request. In 210AS, Tertullian wrote a treatise on the soul and in chapter 58 describes purgatory much as we do. check it out :In short, inasmuch as we understand “the prison” pointed out in the Gospel to be Hades, and as we also interpret “the uttermost farthing” to mean the very smallest offence which has to be recompensed there before the resurrection, no one will hesitate to believe that the soul undergoes in Hades some compensatory discipline, without prejudice to the full process of the resurrection, when the recompense will be administered through the flesh besides

earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian10.html

 

[Thing]

YANKEE D:

No one except God has the authority to forgive sins. Such a power is not transferable. We sin against God, and so only God can forgive sins. God’s plan of atonement for sin entailed that sins could only be forgiven through blood sacrifice. To claim such authority makes us equal to God ourselves.

Jesus told the disciples that they had the power to retain the sins of those who had wronged them, yet, they also knew that if they didn’t forgive those who had wronged them, they in turn would not be forgiven by the Father. If they freely forgave sins committed against them, so would the Father forgive the disciples’ sins committed against Himself. They had no power to forgive the sins of others not specifically committed against them, or against God. We can only forgive the trespasses of others done against us. If a man sins he is accountable to God.

Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: **Receive **ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them;

Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them;

they are forgiven them;

**they are **;

**are **;

It is final; **WHEN **the Apostle forgives a persons sins **THEY ARE **forgiven them - Jesus said.

 

[paul_c]

There are many more examples of the writings of the Early church fathers that refute your statements that Catholic doctrines were defined post 325 AD. In fact, they clearly show that these doctrines come from the apostles and have been practiced since Christ commissioned the Apostles to bring the truth to all the nations.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Randy Carson,

No one except God has the authority to forgive sins. Such a power is not transferable. We sin against God, and so only God can forgive sins. God’s plan of atonement for sin entailed that sins could only be forgiven through blood sacrifice. To claim such authority makes us equal to God ourselves.

Jesus told the disciples that they had the power to retain the sins of [SIGN]those who had wronged [/SIGN]B]them

, yet, they also knew that if they didn’t forgive those who had wronged them, they in turn would not be forgiven by the Father. If they freely forgave sins committed against them, so would the Father forgive the disciples’ sins committed against Himself. They had no power to forgive the sins of others not specifically committed against them, or against God. We can only forgive the trespasses of others done against us. If a man sins he is accountable to God.

"Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?" Mark 2:7

Where is that scripture for those who wronged him. Thats adding to scripture is it not. If so show me the scripture that says that. And are you saying that Jesus did not have the power to forgive sins. Are you saying when Jesus breathed on them and said receive the Holy Spirit it could not do that? I cannot believe you are saying that Jesus did not have the right to forgive sins in Mark 2:7. SO you deny that Jesus had that power. And I can’t believe that you are saying Jesus could not entrust that power to hs disciples as scripture states. Are you Jewish?

 

[yankee_drifter]

PRmerger,

Some of the things on your list are non essentials such as head coverings, music, etc.

There are pseudo christian denominations that do not strictly adhere to Scriptural teachings. They include other books and writings of men. They can claim to be true Christians or Protestants but they are not. Mormons, JWs, 7th Day Adventists, Church of Christ, Oneness Pentecostals, Universalists etc all claim to be True Christians but their erroneous/false teachings/doctrines shows other wise.

However, to claim that the RCC is united in doctrine is a fallacy. For example, many RC theologians believe that there are many errors in the Bible, contrary to the former position of the church. Or they believe certain portions of the Bible are myths.The Eastern church disagrees so violently with the Catholic doctrine of the papacy that the Orthodox church has tried to block visits by the pope to Orthodox lands. The idea of unity of doctrine before the Reformation is fiction. Churches with bishops have suffered as many divisions as churches without bishops. There have even been times of more than one pope at one time.

One of the biggest differences between the Catholics and Orthodox is the doctrine that the popes of Rome have absolute authority over all other bishops throughout Christianity and that they are infallible in matters of doctrine. Both dogmas had never existed until the 9th century, when more and more Roman popes were seeking to assert their spiritual authority as the supreme expression of the Faith. Eastern Orthodoxy cannot accept such beliefs because these ideals were never part of the early Church.

The RCC also began to believe in another new doctrine, which states that the Virgin Mary was conceived and born without sin. The early Church, including Eastern Orthodoxy, believes that the Virgin Mary was capable of sinning.

The Catholic church about 1000 years ago decided to force all priests to be celibate. But the Orthodox church continues to practice the apostolic tradition of married priests.

The list goes on…

 

[Des]

Randy Carson,

No one except God has the authority to forgive sins. Such a power is not transferable. We sin against God, and so only God can forgive sins. God’s plan of atonement for sin entailed that sins could only be forgiven through blood sacrifice. To claim such authority makes us equal to God ourselves.

Jesus told the disciples that they had the power to retain the sins of those who had wronged them, yet, they also knew that if they didn’t forgive those who had wronged them, they in turn would not be forgiven by the Father. If they freely forgave sins committed against them, so would the Father forgive the disciples’ sins committed against Himself. They had no power to forgive the sins of others not specifically committed against them, or against God. We can only forgive the trespasses of others done against us. If a man sins he is accountable to God.

That verse cannot be any more clearer than it is. It’s rather amusing watching how a person, ‘going into it’ with the already preconceived notion that a Priest has no authority to forgive sins in the place of Christ on earth, can distort it to mean what you just quoted above there. Nowhere in that verse does it even hint that Jesus is talking about personal sins against them, right after He Breathed on them, right after He sent them just as the Father had sent Him. Those are two quite powerful statements it’s telling us that passed right by you and you just happen to miss the entire entire context of it because of this.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

PRmerger,

Some of the things on your list are non essentials such as head coverings, music, etc.

There are pseudo christian denominations that do not strictly adhere to Scriptural teachings. They include other books and writings of men. They can claim to be true Christians or Protestants but they are not. Mormons, JWs, 7th Day Adventists, Church of Christ, Oneness Pentecostals, Universalists etc all claim to be True Christians but their erroneous/false teachings/doctrines shows other wise.

However, to claim that the RCC is united in doctrine is a fallacy. For example, many RC theologians believe that there are many errors in the Bible, contrary to the former position of the church. The Eastern church disagrees so violently with the Catholic doctrine of the papacy that the Orthodox church has tried to block visits by the pope to Orthodox lands. The idea of unity of doctrine before the Reformation is fiction. Churches with bishops have suffered as many divisions as churches without bishops. There have even been times of more than one pope at one time.

One of the biggest differences between the Catholics and Orthodox is the doctrine that the popes of Rome have absolute authority over all other bishops throughout Christianity and that they are infallible in matters of doctrine. Both dogmas had never existed until the 9th century, when more and more Roman popes were seeking to assert their spiritual authority as the supreme expression of the Faith. Eastern Orthodoxy cannot accept such beliefs because these ideals were never part of the early Church.

The RCC also began to believe in another new doctrine, which states that the Virgin Mary was conceived and born without sin. The early Church, including Eastern Orthodoxy, believes that the Virgin Mary was capable of sinning.

The Catholic church about 1000 years ago decided to force all priests to be celibate. But the Orthodox church continues to practice the apostolic tradition of married priests.

The list goes on…

What the EO say that Mary sinned. THe CC forced all Priests to be celebate. Oh my we better tell that to the Catholic Priests who are married.

 

[yankee_drifter]

Des,

The Holy Scriptures nowhere teaches that a priest, or any man can forgive sins. This is why the Jews sought to stone Jesus because he forgave someone of their sin. If your priest can absolve your sins, then why do you still need to do penance and after you die, suffer for an unknown duration in “purgatory” for these sins?

 

[rinnie]

Des,

The Holy Scriptures nowhere teaches that a priest, or any man can forgive sins. This is why the Jews sought to stone Jesus because he forgave someone of their sin. If your priest can absolve your sins, then why do you still need to do penance and after you die, suffer for an unknown duration in “purgatory” for these sins?

Yes you are correct the Jews denied Jesus. If we are absolved from our sins before death we do not need purgatory for goodness sakes.

 

[Thing]

Des,

The Holy Scriptures nowhere teaches that a priest, or any man can forgive sins. This is why the Jews sought to stone Jesus because he forgave someone of their sin. If your priest can absolve your sins, then why do you still need to do penance and after you die, suffer for an unknown duration in “purgatory” for these sins?

And the Jews *then *found out how wrong they were, *this *man could actually forgive sins and could, as God, give other men the power to forgive sins, receive ye the Holy Ghost , whose sin ye shall forgive; which is why the priest says by the power granted etc., etc.

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger,

Some of the things on your list are non essentials such as head coverings, music, etc

Do you have a Scripture verse that tells us what’s an essential belief and what’s a non-essential belief, yankee?

 

[Des]

Des,

The Holy Scriptures nowhere teaches that a priest, or any man can forgive sins. This is why the Jews sought to stone Jesus because he forgave someone of their sin.

Yankee, there is plenty of evidence given to the contrary in other threads talking about Confession through Priests. Perhaps you should take a look in them.

If your priest can absolve your sins, then why do you still need to do penance and after you die, suffer for an unknown duration in “purgatory” for these sins?

As was already said in this thread, the sins are forgiven, the effects still have to be paid. Unless you have unconfessed venial sins on your soul. That’s a problem of course if one doesn’t believe in confessing his sins but assuming they are already taken care of which is ludicrous. All sin is the same? What makes you any different than a rapist who dies in the act or you who dies in the act of performing a little white lie? At that very moment, you’re a lover of evil, not God. That is far from godly or anything a man who’s been cleansed by the blood of Christ would do. So you either repent, start over again or continue on with a dirty soul that eventually needs to be wiped clean either in this life or the next.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy Carson,

No one except God has the authority to forgive sins. Such a power is not transferable. We sin against God, and so only God can forgive sins. God’s plan of atonement for sin entailed that sins could only be forgiven through blood sacrifice. To claim such authority makes us equal to God ourselves.

Jesus told the disciples that they had the power to retain the sins of those who had wronged them, yet, they also knew that if they didn’t forgive those who had wronged them, they in turn would not be forgiven by the Father. If they freely forgave sins committed against them, so would the Father forgive the disciples’ sins committed against Himself. They had no power to forgive the sins of others not specifically committed against them, or against God. We can only forgive the trespasses of others done against us. If a man sins he is accountable to God.

"Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?" Mark 2:7

Here, Yankee_drifter adds words to the scriptures by claiming that the Apostles only had the authority to forgive those who had wronged them personally. Scripture does not say this.

Oh, my…it’s like shooting fish in a barrel…let’s review the Word of God, okay? :yup:

Mark 2:5-7
5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” 6Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7"Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

Who can forgive sins but God alone? This question is often asked by those who seek to deny the sacrament of confession. However, note that this question is asked by the scribes who did not accept Jesus. Those who quote this passage find themselves on the side of those who rejected the Messiah. There’s more to the story, however; let’s consider the same incident from the book of Matthew.

Matthew 9:1-7
1 Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. 2Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.” 3 At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, “This fellow is blaspheming!” 4 Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? 5Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? 6But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…” Then he said to the paralytic, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” 7And the man got up and went home. 8When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.

The Bible teaches that God had given the authority to forgive sins “to men”. Note that this is not “to a man” but “to men” – plural. So, it is not only Jesus who has authority to forgive sins – “men” have this authority, also. This sounds like a “hard teaching”…is there confirmation of this in the Bible?

John 20:21-23
21 Again Jesus said,"Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you."22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

How did God send Jesus into the world? With the authority to forgive sins as we saw in Matthew 9:6. How does Jesus send the Apostles? In the same way that the Father had sent Him…with the authority to forgive sins as we have just seen in John 20:23. How could the Apostles obey the commandment of Jesus to forgive sins unless they heard these sins confessed? Thus, scripture records that people did confess their sins aloud.

Acts 19:18 (New International Version)
18Many of those who believed now came and openly confessed their evil deeds.

Finally, we find that the Apostle Paul himself forgave the sins of others acting in persona Christi or “in the person of Christ” – just as the Catholic Church teaches concerning the sacrament of reconciliation.

2 Corinthians 2:10
10To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ; (KJV)

And 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. (Douay Rheims)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why do you distinguish Roman Catholic from Catholic?

Yankee_drifter has decided to use the term “Roman Catholic” for all the negative reasons listed in the thread where I asked if the phrase is offensive.

He reasons that since “only” 25% of Catholics agreed that they are offended, it’s okay to use the term ignoring the fact that he is intentionally offending one out of every four Catholics by doing so.

By using the qualifier, “Roman”, he seeks to minimize the Church as the ONE Church built by Jesus Christ upon Peter the rock, and he clings to the misguided notion that the Church as we know it today is of Constantine and not of God.

He hopes to syphon off some of the Catholic Church’s true apostolicity for his own “ecclesial community” which would otherwise be devoid of any real authority.

 

[Randy_Carson]

However, to claim that the RCC is united in doctrine is a fallacy. For example, many RC theologians believe that there are many errors in the Bible, contrary to the former position of the church. Or they believe certain portions of the Bible are myths.The Eastern church disagrees so violently with the Catholic doctrine of the papacy that the Orthodox church has tried to block visits by the pope to Orthodox lands. The idea of unity of doctrine before the Reformation is fiction. Churches with bishops have suffered as many divisions as churches without bishops. There have even been times of more than one pope at one time.

One of the biggest differences between the Catholics and Orthodox is the doctrine that the popes of Rome have absolute authority over all other bishops throughout Christianity and that they are infallible in matters of doctrine. Both dogmas had never existed until the 9th century, when more and more Roman popes were seeking to assert their spiritual authority as the supreme expression of the Faith. Eastern Orthodoxy cannot accept such beliefs because these ideals were never part of the early Church.

The RCC also began to believe in another new doctrine, which states that the Virgin Mary was conceived and born without sin. The early Church, including Eastern Orthodoxy, believes that the Virgin Mary was capable of sinning.

The Catholic church about 1000 years ago decided to force all priests to be celibate. But the Orthodox church continues to practice the apostolic tradition of married priests.

The list goes on…

Yankee_drifter is now an expert in three different faith traditions - Catholicism (which he abandoned), Protestantism (which he embraced) and Orthodoxy (which he uses as a whip with which to flog Catholics). Note that while he extols the virtues of the Orthodox, he does not think enough of them to actually become Orthodox himself.

In this particular post, Yankee_drifter claims that the Catholic Church is doctrinally divided because theologians do not agree on every doctrine. This makes sense given the seas that he currently sails upon as a Protestant - this is how Protestantism operates. What Yankee_drifter fails to appreciate is that the OFFICIAL position of the Catholic Church is all that matters, and that while she gives all of her sons freedom to speculate on theological matters, she ultimately chooses (infallibly) which of their ideas to proclaim and which to reject.

Yankee_drifter also seeks to make much of the fact that the Catholic Church requires celibacy of its Latin Rite priests unlike the Orthodox whom he suddenly views as the true heirs to the Apostles, but he is presumably ignorant of the facts that A) the Catholic Church has married priests within the Latin Rite and B) that the Orthodox REQUIRE their Bishops to be unmarried even though they allow priests to marry. Thus, the Orthodox, too, acknowledge that celibacy is a good thing for those who have great responsibility over the household of God.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The RCC also began to believe in another new doctrine, which states that the Virgin Mary was conceived and born without sin. The early Church, including Eastern Orthodoxy, believes that the Virgin Mary was capable of sinning.

As has been pointed out to him elsewhere, Yankee_drifter seems unaware of the writings of the Early Church Fathers which (echoing scripture itself) includes:

Origen

This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Homily 1 [A.D. 244]).

Being shown the truth makes no impression, and the list Yankee_drifter’s errors goes on…

 

[Randy_Carson]

Des,

The Holy Scriptures nowhere teaches that a priest, or any man can forgive sins. This is why the Jews sought to stone Jesus because he forgave someone of their sin. If your priest can absolve your sins, then why do you still need to do penance and after you die, suffer for an unknown duration in “purgatory” for these sins?

Yankee_drifter fails to recognize the principle that when a child breaks a window, he may be forgiven, but he still has to pay for the window.

 

[paul_c]

However, to claim that the RCC is united in doctrine is a fallacy. For example, many RC theologians believe that there are many errors in the Bible, contrary to the former position of the church. Or they believe certain portions of the Bible are myths.The Eastern church disagrees so violently with the Catholic doctrine of the papacy that the Orthodox church has tried to block visits by the pope to Orthodox lands. The idea of unity of doctrine before the Reformation is fiction. Churches with bishops have suffered as many divisions as churches without bishops. There have even been times of more than one pope at one time.

This is a completely ignorant statement. the church created unity prior to the reformation with its many church councils. And sure, there are individuals who claim to be catholic that make all kinds of statements. They do not speak for the church. And the Orthodox might disagree with the concept of the infallable papacy but that is not why they try to block visits to the Pope to their lands. They are worried that the Pope will pull people toward Catholicism if the people see him up close (and they are right).

One of the biggest differences between the Catholics and Orthodox is the doctrine that the popes of Rome have absolute authority over all other bishops throughout Christianity and that they are infallible in matters of doctrine. Both dogmas had never existed until the 9th century, when more and more Roman popes were seeking to assert their spiritual authority as the supreme expression of the Faith. Eastern Orthodoxy cannot accept such beliefs because these ideals were never part of the early Church.

We have Clement’s letter to the Corinitians from 80AD, which already shows Papal authority over other bishops. Your statement therefore has no merit. Try backing up your statements with evidence. If you can’t find the supporting evidence, don’t make the statement.

The RCC also began to believe in another new doctrine, which states that the Virgin Mary was conceived and born without sin. The early Church, including Eastern Orthodoxy, believes that the Virgin Mary was capable of sinning.

Can you show any evidence to support this statement?

The Catholic church about 1000 years ago decided to force all priests to be celibate. But the Orthodox church continues to practice the apostolic tradition of married priests.

The list goes on…

yes, but the 22 eastern rite churches in communion with rome have married priests. This is a chruch practice, not church doctrine.

 

[guanophore]

Were the apostles roman catholic? Or were they Jews? Were all the NT writers roman catholics? Did the church begin in Jerusalem? or Rome? was James the leader of the Jerusalem church or Peter? Were they first called Christians in Antioch or catholics?

The Apostles were Palestinian Jews who became Catholic at Pentecost. The Church began in the upper room of Jerusalem. James was the leader of the Jerusalem community. Peter was the servant of the servants of God. All Christians were Catholic.

 If one went into a church today, and discovered that the people gathered there did not believe in the papacy, did not believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Bodily Assumption of Mary, purgatory, indulgences, did not believe in the concept of transubstantiation replete with the communion host’s total change in accidence and substance, and had no tabernacles on the altars in their churches, would one think he or she was in a “Roman Catholic” church?   Of course not. Yet, the church before 325 AD had none of these beliefs, either. While they called themselves “catholics” at that time, they would not have had any idea what “Roman Catholic” meant.

You are suffering from a misunderstanding about the early Church, yankee.

Show me with documentation that all the church councils were roman catholic. Show that in every one Rome and the pope had complete rule and final say.

You have misunderstood the Catholic church yankee. It is not “Roman”.

Your denials cannot change the facts of history. Look at the council of Hippo, it definitely was not a Roman Catholic council. It consisted only of North African pastors. Rome had nothing to do with it.

Well, the Syrian Church did not have anything to do with the Council of Trent, either, but that does not make it less Catholic. Do you think that Hippo was not Catholic?

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Of course they were Its simple. The Peter was the first Pope, he was at the Church at Rome. The Pope is still in the Church in Rome. There you have it the Roman Catholic Church. Now can you deny that?

It’s not in the Bible.

I thought you were going to go a little easier on us non-Roman Catholics rinnie?

 

[guanophore]

 No one except God has the authority to forgive sins.

This is a strange thing to say,when there are so many scriptural references that tell us we have the responsibility to do so. Why would God give us such commandments, if it were not possible to keep them?

 Such a power is not transferable.

I dont’ think “transferable” is really the right word. He does not give up His authority when He shares it with people.

We sin against God, and so only God can forgive sins. God’s plan of atonement for sin entailed that sins could only be forgiven through blood sacrifice. To claim such authority makes us equal to God ourselves.

All sins are forgiven through the blood sacrifice of Christ, no matter who does it.

I agree to claim such a thing if it were not gifted by God would be quite a case of hubris.

Jesus told the disciples that they had the power to retain the sins of those who had wronged them, yet, they also knew that if they didn’t forgive those who had wronged them, they in turn would not be forgiven by the Father. If they freely forgave sins committed against them, so would the Father forgive the disciples’ sins committed against Himself.

This is part of what He gave them, which kinda flies in the face of your previous statement that only God has the authority, right? He commanded us to forgive one another.

However, in the passage you are referencing, there is nothing to indicate the authority about retaining and forgiving is limited to sins against themselves.

They had no power to forgive the sins of others not specifically committed against them, or against God. We can only forgive the trespasses of others done against us. If a man sins he is accountable to God.

I am sure you need to believe this. Otherwise, you would have a serious theological problem. However, there is nothing in the text that indicates what you are saying here is true. The practices of the early Church also demonstrate that you are in error.

"Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?" Mark 2:7

Are you supporting yourself by aligning yourself with those who reject Christ? Why do that, instead of aligning yourself with those who believed in Him, and rejoiced that he gave this power to men?