Question on Matthew 5:29

[De_Maria]

Okay De_Maria. You wouldn’t want historical facts to support and back up what you believe now would you?

I already have those, tg.

I was always taught, that All truth is God’s Truth. … but okay…

It is. But you said.

Actually the video series are quite challenging to both the Protestant and Catholic points of view on the pope.

Points which some people consider challenging to Catholics about the Pope, are probably false. All that we need to know is that the Papacy was instituted by Jesus Christ and that it is protected by the Holy Spirit. Have you ever heard?

Psalm 23:4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

So, what could be challenging?

Blessings.

To you too.

 

[De_Maria]

If it speak beyond the perameters of N.T. doctrine, then tradition is of men and not of God.

The New Testament begins with Doctrine.
The New Testament Doctrine was written into New Testament Scripture to record what Jesus Christ Taught and commanded to be Taught.

Interpretations of Scripture must not speak beyond the parameters of NT Doctrine. But NT is not Scripture alone. NT is first Tradition and within that Tradition, also Scripture.

For instance, the N.T. writers all a

???

De_Maria, the word of God exhorts us to practice obeying the truth as the Apostles taught it.

Correct. But the Word of God does not come to us by Scripture alone.

Hebrews 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

This is do. If there is a tradition that further validates the word, I’m in!

Catholic Tradition is the Word. You’re confusing Protestant interpretations of Scripture for, the word. The only entity in the world that is giving you the Word of God, infallibly, is the Catholic Church, by her Sacred Traditions and her Scriptures.

 

[De_Maria]

Doctrine is not developed with one verse of scripture…

NT Doctrine is not developed from Scripture, AT ALL. NT Doctrine came from Jesus Christ. NT Scripture came from the Catholic Church. NT Doctrine already existed and was already being Taught by the Catholic Church before some of her members began to write it down.

 

[Gorgias]

Doctrine is not developed with one verse of scripture from one supposed witness.

So… the words of Jesus Himself – “one supposed witness”, and accepted by the Church for 2000 years, as part of inspired Scripture – aren’t sufficient for you?

Your take on Matthew contradicts.

Contradicts whom, exactly? Jesus, who made the initial assertion? The Church, who received Jesus’ proxy of authority and has taught this teaching consistently for two millennia?

Who else in the Apostolic circle agrees with you and backed it up by their inspired writings?

Well, for one, the magisterium.

But, let’s look at your claim. You seem to be making two claims here:

• Jesus’ assertion about the “rock” on which the Church will be built refer to Peter’s statement, and not Peter himself.
• Ephesians 2:20 makes a different assertion, vis-a-vis “apostles” in the plural.

Both of these are problematic, for various reasons:

• In Mt 16, “on this rock” points to a prior referent. In general, one doesn’t point across a number of possible referents in order to reach back to a more remote one; that tends to make the reference unclear. Rather, one looks for the most recent possible referent, as that is generally what is pointed at. So, in these verses, we have (in order):
  • Peter’s confession that Jesus is “the Messiah” and “Son of the living God” (Mt 16:16)
  • Jesus’ referent to that assertion (“my heavenly Father has revealed this to you”) (Mt 16:17)
  • Jesus’ renaming of Simon to ‘Peter’ (Mt 16:18)
  • Jesus’ referent: “upon this rock” (Mt 16:18)
  Now, for your claim that “this rock” is Peter’s confession of Jesus as Messiah, you have a few difficulties to get over:
  • Jesus has already referred back to that confession
  • there’s another possible referent standing “in the way”: Jesus’ renaming of Simon
  • the name itself – ‘Peter’ — means ‘rock’, and is the natural referent.
  I get that, for polemic reasons, you don’t want that to be true. Nevertheless, how do you reason around it, given these textual clues?
• You also claim that Ephesians 2:20 is in conflict with the Catholic interpretation of Mt 16:18. If that’s true, it’s also in conflict with your interpretation of Mt 16:18! Here’s why:
  • in Mt 16:18, Jesus builds His Church on Himself, in His identity as Messiah. But, if Ephesians is to not contradict your interpretation, you’ll have to explain why both it and Mt 16:18 use the same root (“oikodomeo” – ‘to build a house’), and Ephesians point to two different foundations – Mt says it’s “the confession” and Ephesians says it’s the “apostles and prophets”! If you’re gonna claim “contradiction”, it’s your assertion that appears contradictory!

 

[EndTimes]

"Are there any known cases where someone has actually had one of their “members” removed in the interest of this statement?

If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into Gehenna."

Maybe, yet, so what? in one sense…

… One could indeed postulate a Legion of spin-off speculational questions -
but to what genuinely meaningful end?

Bottom Line … IF one were to Actually find that one could not enter God’s Eternal Kingdom unless for instance literally removed one’s eye - question to knowing believers would be - what should one do?

And in one of most likely many manners of expressing some Understandings … therein lies some underlying Wisdom with regard to the Call for our always seeking perfection by continually ridding ourselves of figurative sea-anchors which Stunt our realizeable Growth.

 

[tgGodsway]

So… the words of Jesus Himself – “one supposed witness”, and accepted by the Church for 2000 years, as part of inspired Scripture – aren’t sufficient for you?

Gorgias haven’t you read Jesus own words on how one gets to the truth?.. “… by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.” Mt. 18:16.

If only the CC had applied this rule straight from the Master, they could have avoided all the mess on this subject my friend.

The SUM (=all the added parts on any given subject) of thy word is truth. Psalms 119:160 NASV

 

[tgGodsway]

Who else in the Apostolic circle agrees with you and backed it up by their inspired writings?

Hee hee… the magisterium!.. wow… are they the founding apostles of the faith?.. Is that what they claim? No way hose’

 

[tgGodsway]

Lol! Really? You think they could have done it without God? We believe it is because of the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Of course not. That was not my thought. The Apostles, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, led the Church into the truth. Did they have all the truth?.. YES. it was once for all delivered to them! JUDE 1:3.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias haven’t you read Jesus own words on how one gets to the truth?.. “… by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.” Mt. 18:16.

tg, Jesus is quoting Mosaic law on criminal procedure there, from Deut 19:15. Are you suggesting that when Jesus taught the people, we should ignore it unless we can find one or two other people who taught the same thing? ‘Cause if you go by that standard, you must discard Jesus’ teaching, since “he taught as one with authority”, in contradistinction to the scribes, who taught by quoting others.

If only the CC had applied this rule straight from the Master, they could have avoided all the mess on this subject my friend.

If only Protestants had listened to the words of the Master, which had been being followed for 1500 years, they could’ve avoided all the mess on this subject, friend.

tgGodsway:

Hee hee… the magisterium!.. wow… are they the founding apostles of the faith?.. Is that what they claim?

The “magisterium” is the teaching authority of the Church. And yes, the “founding apostles” were given that authority by Christ. They handed that authority down to their successors. So… yes, the claim that the teaching authority continues to reside in the Church is a grant of authority from Christ which is Scriptural. Thanks for asking.

 

[Vico]

…

A hand or eye do not make one culpable for Gehenna, but the will to do evil with knowledge and sufficient reflection. That means that pluck and cut means the action of the will. Avoid the near and voluntary occasion of sin.

Sirach 3 (version 26 in some versions)

27 A hard heart shall fear evil at the last: and he that loveth danger shall perish in it.

 

[tgGodsway]

tg, Jesus is quoting Mosaic law on criminal procedure there, from Deut 19:15. Are you suggesting that when Jesus taught the people, we should ignore it unless we can find one or two other people who taught the same thing? ‘Cause if you go by that standard, you must discard Jesus’ teaching, since “he taught as one with authority”, in contradistinction to the scribes, who taught by quoting others.

Gorgias, it is always fun to debate you. … the principle of finding the truth of a matter goes way beyond the Mosaic law my friend. It is even found in Paul’s writings not in relation to Mosaic law. “Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, to which you were also called and have confessed the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.” 1st. Tim. 6:12.

Having a witness to one’s profession of faith, or to a court trial, or to doctrinal statements are so much more than what you think Gorgias. It brings support and continuity to a matter. See 1st. Cor. 15:15; 2nd. Cor. 13:1.
Jesus too quoted O.T. witnesses when He spoke. Therefore His word was validated by those witnesses. The scribes and Pharisees usually twisted scripture to their advantage, not sure why you would bring them up as an example.

 

[tgGodsway]

The “magisterium” is the teaching authority of the Church .

No… it is the teaching authority of the CC, just one slice in a very large pie.

 

[EndTimes]

" No… it is the teaching authority of the CC, just one slice in a very large pie. "

Yes… and one slice OF the Magisterial Teachings is the CCC
The Catechism of The Catholic Church…
It’s an excellent Source of Understanding Catholicism

It’s in Four Parts -

Here’s but a part of the Table of Contents for Part One from the Vatican’s Website

PROLOGUE
I. The life of man - to know and love God
II. Handing on the Faith: Catechesis
III. The Aim and Intended Readership of the Catechism
IV. Structure of this Catechism
V. Practical Directions for Using this Catechism
VI. Necessary Adaptations

PART ONE: THE PROFESSION OF FAITH
SECTION ONE “I BELIEVE” - “WE BELIEVE”
CHAPTER ONE MAN’S CAPACITY FOR GOD
I. The Desire for God
II. Ways of Coming to Know God
III. The Knowledge of God According to the Church
IV. How Can We Speak about God?
IN BRIEF

CHAPTER TWO GOD COMES TO MEET MAN
Article 1 THE REVELATION OF GOD
I. God Reveals His “Plan of Loving Goodness”
II. The Stages of Revelation
III. Christ Jesus – “Mediator and Fullness of All Revelation”
IN BRIEF

Article 2 THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION
I. The Apostolic Tradition
II. The Relationship Between Tradition and Sacred Scripture
III. The Interpretation of the Heritage of Faith
IN BRIEF

Article 3 SACRED SCRIPTURE
I. Christ - The Unique Word of Sacred Scripture
II. Inspiration and Truth of Sacred Scripture
III. The Holy Spirit, Interpreter of Scripture
IV. The Canon of Scripture
V. Sacred Scripture in the Life of the Church
IN BRIEF

CHAPTER THREE MAN’S RESPONSE TO GOD
Article 1 I BELIEVE
I. The Obedience of Faith
II. “I Know Whom I Have Believed”
III. The Characteristics of Faith

Article 2 WE BELIEVE
I. “Lord, Look Upon the Faith of Your Church”
II. The Language of Faith
III. Only One Faith
IN BRIEF
The Credo

SECTION TWO I. THE CREEDS
CHAPTER ONE I BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER
Article 1 “I BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY, CREATOR OF HEAVEN AND EARTH”
Paragraph 1. I BELIEVE IN GOD
Paragraph 2. THE FATHER
Paragraph 3. THE ALMIGHTY
Paragraph 4. THE CREATOR
Paragraph 5. HEAVEN AND EARTH
Paragraph 6. MAN
Paragraph 7. THE FALL

 

[Gorgias]

the principle of finding the truth of a matter goes way beyond the Mosaic law my friend.

I agree. However, you just used the prescriptions of the Mosaic law to support your argument. I would say that you’re also prooftexting, with that one…

Having a witness to one’s profession of faith, or to a court trial, or to doctrinal statements are so much more than what you think Gorgias. It brings support and continuity to a matter. See 1st. Cor. 15:15; 2nd. Cor. 13:1.

Peter professed it to Jesus Himself. Literally. To His face! And you’re suggesting that we need more witnesses? C’mon, tg… it’s time to admit you’re clinging to a tradition of men, here…

Jesus too quoted O.T. witnesses when He spoke. Therefore His word was validated by those witnesses.

So, let me be sure I understand what you’re saying: you’re claiming that Jesus could not speak on His own, but needed to be validated by O.T. / Mosaic Law prescriptions?

(I think there’s a whole different reason for Jesus to quote the OT. “He needed to be validated by it” goes too far, however.)

No… it is the teaching authority of the CC, just one slice in a very large pie.

From 33A.D. through the 1500s, was the magisterium “the teaching authority of the Christian Church”?

 

[EndTimes]

" From 33A.D. through the 1500s,
was the magisterium “the teaching authority of the Christian Church”? "

Yes, however Through most of that time (not all) - and on up to today, beyond, the 1500’s.

From 33 AD through to about 100 AD - is the time of Sacred Apostolic Tradition.

That’s the timeframe of the Widespread Oral Transmission of Jesus’ Gospel
followed by including varying and also widespread written accounts

• some of which never wound up being placed into the Canon of the Bible - circa 400 AD
  i.e., - as we know of the New Testament from then to today.

It was From c. 100 AD that we find the very beginnings of the Magisterium
- via the Bishop successors of the Apostles.

The most basic foundation of the Magisterium, the apostolic succession of bishops and their authority as protectors of the faith, was one of the few points that was rarely debated by the Church Fathers. The doctrine was elaborated by Ignatius of Antioch (and others) in the face of Gnosticism, expounded by others such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Augustine, and by the end of the 2nd century AD was universally accepted by the bishops. [28]

 

[Gorgias]

From 33 AD through to about 100 AD - is the time of Sacred Apostolic Tradition.

Umm… “Sacred Apostolic Tradition” continues far beyond 100 AD. It’s performed by the successors of the apostles, to be sure, but they don’t perform their own ministry – they perform the ministry of Apostolic Tradition!

If you want to assert otherwise, then what you’re asserting is akin to saying “George Washington governed as President… but no one after him did; they governed in another office”. That – and the assertion you’re making – just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, don’t you think?

It was From c. 100 AD that we find the very beginnings of the Magisterium
- via the Bishop successors of the Apostles.

No – the “teaching authority of the Church” is an authority given by Christ Himself !!! And, it was given to the Apostles, who granted it to their successors. So… the “magisterium” existed when Christ granted authority to Peter (Mt 16) and then to the apostles (Mt 18)!

 

[EndTimes]

“No – the “teaching authority of the Church” is an authority given by Christ Himself !!!”

Not sure if we’re talking - past one another … FOR…

That Comes across as a strawman argument which attempts to sweep away what I’d said.

I never said that it wasn’t!

And Christ Granted Authority to Peter
who now could pass on said Authority - to, for exsmple, other Apostles and Bishops…

From which to build Jesus’ CHURCH … emphasis on Build.

FOR, 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 prevail against it.

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.”

From 33 AD through to about 100 AD - is the time of Sacred Apostolic Tradition.

That’s the timeframe of the Widespread Oral Transmission of Jesus’ Gospel
followed by including varying and also widespread written accounts

some of which never wound up being placed into the Canon of the Bible - circa 400 AD
i.e., - as we know of the New Testament from then to today.
It was From c. 100 AD that we find the very beginnings of the Magisterium

• via the Bishop successors of the Apostles.

The most basic foundation of the Magisterium, the apostolic succession of bishops and their authority as protectors of the faith, was one of the few points that was rarely debated by the Church Fathers. The doctrine was elaborated by Ignatius of Antioch (and others) in the face of Gnosticism, expounded by others such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Augustine, and by the end of the 2nd century AD was universally accepted by the bishops.

 

[tgGodsway]

You don’t sound like it. At which point do you think the Holy Spirit stopped leading the Church into all truth and Luther had to step in to help the Holy Spirit?

It’s not that the Holy Spirit stopped leading. It is that certain members in the Church stop following His lead. The Holy Spirit is always leading those willing to be led. Luther was simply making corrections others refused to make. He himself was on a learning curve by the Holy Spirit no thanks to his Catholic peers at the time.

 

[tgGodsway]

Oh, so, the Holy Spirit was not guiding the Church Fathers, in your opinion. Why? Were they not good enough?

Again, it is not that the Holy Spirit stopped guiding the Church. It is more about how people in the Church refuse to follow His lead. I’m sure you are aware of what James had to say about it. "God resist the proud, but gives grace to the humble. He resist the proud (believer) but gives grace to the humble one. It’s not about being good enough. Any goodness displayed in the Church is all Christ and none of us.

 

[tgGodsway]

Why? Because you say so? Scripture says that there is succession.

John 17:20Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

So, when do you say that it stopped?

But when I ask for a consensus of voices in the N.T. all pointing to a succession of papal authority, you never answer. Nobody on this site answers this very specific question. Only redirects! redirects all day long. The bottom line is, … there is absolutely no teaching by our Christian founders on this carefully defined office, at all.

It’s not even taught in the most likely places it should be taught such as the book of Ephesians. And there is no validating voice within the apostolic circle. None. Zero. Christ Himself taught nothing about this so called "duel office, " or vicar of Christ concept. none! All you can point to is the Matthew 16 passage itself. But even that passage doesn’t conclude all that you conclude about it. In other words you read more into it than the passage reads out. But as far as who leads the Church, Paul does answer the question. His answer doesn’t include a duel-shepherding concept. Interesting. … He says the Church is build upon “the APOSTLES and prophets, JESUS CHRIST being the chief cornerstone.” Eph. 2:20. But I can quote this verse all day long. It falls on deaf ears unfortunately. It’s like the word of God doesn’t matter if it upsets the apple cart of pre-conceived theology.