scripture question

[happilycatholic]

Just for the record, in this quote from my post:

*“And again, try to get your information from unbiased Christian history not the kind of **** you referenced here. It’s insulting to say the least.”
*
The word that is edited is not a cuss word. It rhymes with ‘wrap’.

I don’t want anyone thinking I have a potty mouth. Although, my g-ma would say it’s bad enough.

 

[happilycatholic]

Hmmm, here are some bits from the “Power of the Keys” page at New Advent:

In the Fathers the references to the promise of Matthew 16:19, are of frequent occurrence. Almost invariably the words of Christ are cited in proof of the Church’s power to forgive sins. The application is a natural one, for the promise of the keys is immediately followed by the words: “Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth”, etc. Moreover, the power to confer or to withhold forgiveness might well be viewed as the opening and shutting of the gates of heaven. This interpretation, however, restricts the sense somewhat too narrowly…

…The meaning attached to the term by the older Scholastics was, however, different from this. They followed the patristic tradition, and confined its significance to the judicial authority exercised in the Sacrament of Penance. The power of the keys, St. Thomas tells us (Summa Theologica Supp:17:2, ad 1um), is a necessary consequence of the sacerdotal character. It is, in fact, identical in essence with the power to consecrate and to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The one sacerdotal gift is applied to different ends in the different sacraments. Such, too, appears to be the teaching of Pope John XXII in a well-known passage dealing with this subject (Extravag., tit. xiv, De verborum signif., c. v, Quia quorundam). The definition, “Clavis est specialis potestas ligandi et solvendi qua judex ecclesiasticus dignos recipere et indignos excludere debet a regno” (The keys are a special power of binding and loosing by which the ecclesiastical judge should receive the worthy [into the kingdom of heaven] and exclude the unworthy therefrom), generally accepted in the Scholastic period.

It seems that (like me) the ECFs (for the most part) had a hard time grasping your alleged meaning of the keys. How odd it is that, when the ECFs have something to say in favour of a disputed CC doctrine, their opinion is said to reflect apostolic teaching. On the other hand, when the ECFs give a meaning to a passage that does not align with what the modern Catholic needs, the understanding of the ECFs is ignored.

Well I read it. It seems to depict some foggy notions going on amongst some (not most as you claim) ECFs as to what exactly fell under the scope of the “binding and loosing” part of Christ’s commission to them. BUT NOT THE AUTHORITY OF THE KEYS and the fact that they were expressly given to Peter and that made him Pope or the head authority of Christ’s Church on earth.

Further, they are members, not the Church in toto and cannot be taken as such and their opinions do not reflect the opinions of the Church as a whole. There will always be differing ‘opinions’ among members of a church, even among popes, cardinals, bishops, and priests in the catholic Church. Apparently there was not wide-spread problem or there would have been an ex cathedra address to God’s people by the Church on the matter.

However, IMHO and inline with the Church’s I presume from reading the catechism, Christ was clear on this. He gave the Keys to Peter and gave the power to bind and loose sins to all the Apostles as hierarchy to be passed along. He did this when he breathed the Holy Spirit upon them at Passover.

 

[adrift]

In verse 63 of the quoted chapter Christ states that he is speaking spiritualy, all things are symbolic of Christ when refered to in the temporal / mortal realm, they who walked no more with him where they who understood not the spirit.

If He had been speaking symbolically no one would have left. They understood exactly what He meant and it was to hard. He doesn’t state that He spoke symbolically. Its not there and you have to just take one verse and ignore the whole chapter to come to that conclusion.

 

[peary]

Jesus was speaking figuratively and it needs to be kept in context with the passover and seder meal. The Jews use unleavened bread to symbolize the body of the lambs from the Exodus and also red wine with warm water to symbolize the blood. The Apostles being Jews would recognize that in referring to these elements Christ was stating they now represent HIS body and blood and no longer the lambs form the Exodus. That’s why Jesus states that HE will no longer drink this fruit of the vine until HE drinks it new again. Fruit of the vine is a common term for referring to wine. So even after Jesus states this cup is the new covenant in my blood HE still refers to the liquid as fruit of the vine.

It’s not either/or - it’s BOTH/AND.

 

[Radical]

Well I read it. It seems to depict some foggy notions going on amongst some (not most as you claim) ECFs as to what exactly fell under the scope of the “binding and loosing” part of Christ’s commission to them.

I guess that I should have put this bit in bold:

In the Fathers the references to the promise of Matthew 16:19, are of frequent occurrence. Almost invariably the words of Christ are cited in proof of the Church’s power to forgive sins. The application is a natural one, for the promise of the keys is immediately followed by the words: “Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth”, etc.

some of the ECFs? What do think “almost invariably” means?

under the scope of the “binding and loosing” part? Nope, its the whole of Matt 16:19 including those allegedly Prime ministerial keys.

Apparently there was not wide-spread problem or there would have been an ex cathedra address to God’s people by the Church on the matter.

There wasn’t a wide spread problem b/c they almost invariably agreed that the keys = the power to bind and loose

However, IMHO and inline with the Church’s I presume from reading the catechism, Christ was clear on this. He gave the Keys to Peter and gave the power to bind and loose sins to all the Apostles as hierarchy to be passed along.

no, he gave the keys which was the power to bind and loose…just as the ECFs (almost invariably) said.

 

[Radical]

Just for the record, in this quote from my post:

*“And again, try to get your information from unbiased Christian history not the kind of **** you referenced here. It’s insulting to say the least.”
*
The word that is edited is not a cuss word. It rhymes with ‘wrap’.

It was claptrap?

 

[Radical]

I’m sorry. I will stick with a 2000 year old document probably written by men who walked with Christ.

That would leave you with some of the books of the NT…not a bad start, but I think you should use all the books of the NT.

I WILL NOT however, read books written by men of today and their “modern scholarship” as you put it.

ahhh come on, give it a try…there has been quite some progress since the Middle Ages…

You are the only one suggesting the reading of propaganda here. I have only suggested you read historical documents that were written by those who had intimate knowledge of Christ and the Apostles.

You do understand that those modern scholars actually do go to the effort of reading “historical documents that were written by those who had intimate knowledge of Christ and the Apostles”? Heck, they read a lot more than that b/c outside of the NT, we don’t have much left from those with “intimate knowledge of Christ and the Apostles.”

 

[Radical]

So I would suggest, if you want the real version of how the Church looks at the meaning of the Keys and subsequently the scope of the Church’s authority within that meaning, you might want to look at the Vatican website or in the catechism.

Well, if I merely wanted to know what the CC thought I might follow your advice…but grandfather was telling me what Christ meant (and what almost everyone throughout history knew Christ meant) by that reference to “keys”…and, as it turns out, it seems that most of the ECFs (some guys from history) didn’t exactly understand the passage the way grandfather (and you?) think everybody did…go figure. Have you ever considered that the interpretation put forward by the bishop of Rome and his followers might be just a little self-serving?

 

[Radical]

I think you need to read up on the Passover. It’s no coincidence that Christ offered himself up as the New Covenant at the Passover. Show where in Scripture the Jews ever used a “symbolic” form of sacrifice. They sacraficed a lamb, a real live lamb, not a lamb cracker or a lamb flavored piece of bread.

Wasn’t the lamb a symbol for Christ?

It’s also no coincidence that Christ offers himself as a Blood AND Body sacrifice. Sacrifice was perfected by separation of the body and blood of the lamb. Kind of like Christ’s sacrifice huh? That was no accident.

And the lamb was first killed, right? So was Christ killed at the first Lord’s Supper? Did the Jews drink the lamb’s blood at passover? You wouldn’t be picking and choosing in an effort to force a conclusion, now would you?

The protestant version of “communion” today is a watered-down version of what Christians were practicing at the time of the Didache.

well from what we see in first Corinthians it seems that they practiced the Eucharist as part of a rather relaxed meal…where some would start eating w/o waiting for others. Apparently, although they got the Supper from Paul, they didn’t hear Paul say that the actual body of Christ was really present such that they shouldn’t have it as part of a haphazard feast…go figure

 

[happilycatholic]

I guess that I should have put this bit in bold:

In the Fathers the references to the promise of Matthew 16:19, are of frequent occurrence. Almost invariably the words of Christ are cited in proof of the Church’s power to forgive sins. The application is a natural one, for the promise of the keys is immediately followed by the words: “Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth”, etc.

 

[happilycatholic]

That would leave you with some of the books of the NT…not a bad start, but I think you should use all the books of the NT.

ahhh come on, give it a try…there has been quite some progress since the Middle
Ages…

 

[happilycatholic]

Well, if I merely wanted to know what the CC thought I might follow your advice…but grandfather was telling me what Christ meant (and what almost everyone throughout history knew Christ meant) by that reference to “keys”…and, as it turns out, it seems that most of the ECFs (some guys from history) didn’t exactly understand the passage the way grandfather (and you?) think everybody did…go figure. Have you ever considered that the interpretation put forward by the bishop of Rome and his followers might be just a little self-serving?

No more self-serving than the protestant interpretation.

 

[happilycatholic]

Wasn’t the lamb a symbol for Christ?

I’m going to use my “ask a Jew” option. Let’s see he says, “no”. He says God told the Jews no such thing.

And the lamb was first killed, right? So was Christ killed at the first Lord’s Supper? Did the Jews drink the lamb’s blood at passover? You wouldn’t be picking and choosing in an effort to force a conclusion, now would you?

Obviously there was more than one meaning in “breaking of bread”. Go figure.

Do YOU think the breaking of bread at the last Passover was the same as eating dinner?

In I Cor. 10: 16-17 Paul makes clear what the Breaking of Bread meant in the Eucharistic sense.

 

[happilycatholic]

And the lamb was first killed, right? So was Christ killed at the first Lord’s Supper?

 

[RGWA]

If He had been speaking symbolically no one would have left. They understood exactly what He meant and it was to hard. He doesn’t state that He spoke symbolically. Its not there and you have to just take one verse and ignore the whole chapter to come to that conclusion.

Then why did so many not look upon the serpent in the wilderness that moses lifted up which was symbolic

In that one verse he qualifies that he is speaking spiritually

“the words that I have spoken to you are spirit …”

 

[happilycatholic]

Then why did so many not look upon the serpent in the wilderness that moses lifted up which was symbolic

In that one verse he qualifies that he is speaking spiritually

“the words that I have spoken to you are spirit …”

Hi RGWA,

Can you explain what, if anything about the following passage says that speaking *in the Spirit *means speaking symbolically?

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Christ is referring to the Holy Spirit, not some symbol. If anything, he is telling them this is REAL, not a game. He is telling them where the words come from and not reiterating what they mean.

When Christ speaks of something being of the spirit or *being spirit *he is not talking about something without life. He is clearly speaking about a living force. That is the point.

Also, would the following passage mean that we are servants symbolically?

2 Cor. 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

I think not. Again, “the spirit giveth life”.

Here’s another:

Rom. 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

Again, the law is talked about as being dead and then differeciates that from the spirit.

 

[happilycatholic]

Then why did so many not look upon the serpent in the wilderness that moses lifted up which was symbolic

In that one verse he qualifies that he is speaking spiritually

“the words that I have spoken to you are spirit …”

Oh, and you quoted this incorrectly. It says, *‘in’ spirit *rather than simply are spirit.

That makes a world of difference. That is how the words came to be rather than what they are or what they mean. Again, Christ is referring to the means by which the message is being delivered, not what the message is.

The message is that they are to partake of the Body and Blood of our Savior and that it is the Holy Spirit speaking, not himself.

 

[peary]

Thats odd I was thinking he only talk ARAMAIC and I think He may have talk a little IRISH I think He had Irish in Him remember He nexer Married and did not leave home until 30…ouch

yeah, and his mother thought he was God

 

[jpaul1953]

yeah, and his mother thought he was God

To Bill Pick and Peary,

Great comebacks. It’s wonderful to put some humor on this since these individuals can’t see. Their eyes and ears are closed because they only remember the things the stewards of the Catholic Church did wrong. And, they say that actions mean nothing. Well, they sure “do” as long as they are condemming the Church for some of Her stewards bad works.

These so-called debaters against the Church always speak of the ignorance of us without seeing their own. How many times can we ‘beat a dead horse’. We know what Christ said and meant. If they are not ready to accept the ‘absolutes’ then so be it.

This has nothing to do with the original question but I would like to state it anyway. I was listening to Christian, not Catholic Christian radio, a while back. Many of the non-Catholic Christian radio stations do not monitor or make guidelines as to what the preachers are saying, only that they pay for their air-time.

Well, this preacher went on and on about how works are too no avail (even though he his working his preaching for a purpose). He said that Jesus shed His blood for all sinners and all sins ‘from yesterday, today, and tomorrow’ (where do they get this stuff!) that one has , is , or will commit. Claiming, as usual, that ‘nothing but nothing’ can take away your Salvation as long as you believe Jesus died for our sins, Nothing more, nothing less!!! You can do any act even though you shouldn’t but your sin is forgiven you before you have even committed it.

Okay, I accept the that some of them want to believe that non-biblical garb. BUT, here’s the kicker. This preacher man continued on and literally stated that there is no way you can lose your Salvation, but if you ever became a Roman Catholic, a Whore of Babylon, you’re doomed to Hell.

I thought you couldn’t lose your Salvation. In his mind wouldn’t becoming Catholic just be a sin since catholics are taught that Jesus died for our sins. Well, I guess he can make an ‘exception to the rule’ because the preacher man is 100% in the Holy Spirit and nothing can leave his tongue that is not the True Word of God. Sounds alot like ‘infallability’ doesn’t it.

I just thought it was worth mentioning so some of us can see how some evangelicals really see the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church.

May God guide us always to thr truth.

jpaul1953

 

[fbl9]

All it would take is for me to see it once…but, here is the rub. What do you mean by “many instances where the host actually became flesh”? Kinda implies that in the other instances it hasn’t actually become flesh…which of course is what I would say happens. Further, was it consumed when it was “actually flesh”? And if so, wouldn’t that be cannibalism?..b/c all the RCs I’ve talked with claim that their Eucharist would never involve the sinful act of cannibalism. This is what I find so frustrating in discussing the RP…words often don’t retain their normal meaning and the details (of what actually happens) change from one fellow to the next.

From the Mary: Ever Virgin page here at Catholic Answers:

Pope Siricius I

“You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king” (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).

Please forgive me for the harshness i exhibited towords you in my post to which this response is directed.
Thanks for pointing out the insuffecientcy of my words.
There are many cases is which the host has became physically discernable flesh.But still you refuse to believe this evidence…

Notice that what Pope Siricus said was very close to what i said and i never heard or read this before,in regards to what this pope written.

Do you consider yourself righteous enough to place sin in the womb that contained no sin?

Virginity is often refered to as one who is “pure” Since you seem to place much stress on symbolism you seem to have missed this fact in regards to the pure MOTHER OF GOD.
Does an impure true tree bear pure fruit?
“…and blessed is the FRUIT of thy womb” St.Luke 1:42
caps are lazy bolding
God bless