R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Well, two inspired books of the NT that we know of…
- Status
P
Peter_J
Guest
So according to your reasoning, there’s really no difference between non-Catholic Christians (Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, etc) and non-Christians.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Leave the documents. Take the cannolis.
G
Gary_Sheldrake
Guest
- I have been a Catholic all my life.
- If the post is a Trojan horse, then you would need to take that up with Patrick. It’s his post. I joined the discussion because I find the topic rather curious. I am vey secure in my identity as a Catholic and happy to see others be whatever it is they see fit to be. I don’t not need to displace anyone to have my own place.
- Being curious and asking you questions about what you say is not exactly a challenge.
I am interested to know what your ideas are on what exactly the keys of heaven are. What do you envision them to be? I think this is a fascinating idea really.
P
Peter_J
Guest
This ^^ isn’t something I would expect from you, Randy. (Or is there a post-Bonocore you that is different from the pre-Bonocore you?)
P
pocohombre
Guest
It was not defined in the early, nor in the “middle” church and only in the “late” church, culminating in 1870. It was most certainly called into question,even to the overthrow of a pope. Concilarism is a figment ? Apparently these Catholics also misunderstood ?My Friend
Infallibility was not defined as such in the Early Church because it was NOT called into question.
If it was so accepted, so undisputed why the need for 1870 ? I agree that some put forth that argument against the infallibiilty decree, as if it might say it was needed.
What does that mean ? Primacy can mean first as in leader, first to proclaim faith, first to preach etc, “first amongst equals”. It can also thus mean primacy in honor. It can also mean primacy as in call for unity, but still not above the other apostles. Then you have CC primacy, as in over the others .And finally not only over others but better in that the promise to be infallible, not as in persevering to the end, but in prophesy, speaking for God and his dictates. Then does it mean that it is passed on ?
This was not ex-cathedra. It was from the Church at Rome. It was what any christian individual ( or corporately) should do when they see brethren stumbling. The admonition is to be heeded not because of Rome or Petrine authority but because as the letter states, cause it is the Lord (who is our author and finisher of every Christian) and the Holy Spirit who must be listened to. The letter is not known to be solicited. Rome had no head bishop till mid 2nd century, but was ruled by a group of presbyters. There is zero mention of Clement in the letter, nor of any bishop, or chair of Peter, magisterium. The letter had it’s chances for it spoke of the pillars of the church, the martyred apostles, even appointing of presbyters/bishops. Peter is mentioned in one line, Paul in three or four sentences. The admonition is one that any Christian should give a failing brethren. Any other church, assembly could have written the exact same words, from beginning to end. We all have the ability to speak for God when restoring a brethren, else why would the Lord allude to it, even command it ?
1Clem prologue:1
The Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which
sojourneth in Corinth, to them which are called and sanctified by the
will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Grace to you and peace
from Almighty God through Jesus Christ be multiplied.
1Clem 1:1
Receive our counsel, and ye shall have no occasion of regret. For as
God liveth, and the Lord Jesus Christ liveth, and the Holy Spirit,
who are the faith and the hope of the elect, so surely shall he, who
with lowliness of mind and instant in gentleness hath without
regretfulness performed the ordinances and commandments that are
given by God,For ye will give us great joy and gladness, if ye render obedience
unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit, And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would
be strife over the name of the bishop’s office.
1Clem 44:2
For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge,
they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a
continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men
should succeed to their ministration. Those therefore who were
appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the
consent of the whole Church, and have ministered unblamably to the
flock of Christ in lowliness of mind, peacefully and with all
modesty,1Clem 5:2
By reason of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous
pillars of the Church were persecuted, and contended even unto death.
1Clem 5:3
Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles.
1Clem 5:4
There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one
not one but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to
his appointed place of glory.
1Clem 5:5
By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the
prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in
bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in
the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the
reward of his faith,
1Clem 5:6
having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached
the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony
before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the
holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance.
P
pocohombre
Guest
Hang in there Gary. You are in good company according to what I have read read about Vat1 and the differing views from faithful Catholic bishops. Maybe the others will like it if I disagree with a few things you have said, but. a lot to catch up on first. Nothing like peer pressure. Speaking of pressure, it is interesting that Italy has 23 voting cardinals, one for every 2 million Italian Catholics while Spain has only 4, one for every 9 million Spanish Catholics and Mexico 4 cardinals. one for every 24 million of it’s Catholics. It is quite extraordinary for a pope to be from Argentina, though of Italian descent, for most popes have been Italian.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Then I apologize. Occasionally people register as “Catholics” but then ask a bunch of questions which are SO Protestant-oriented that eventually their hidden agenda is unmasked.
The keys represent authority. Let me begin here:
**Peter – The Royal Steward
**
In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command (known as the royal steward or prime minister) who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. The prophet Isaiah confirms this:
Isaiah 22:20-22
"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.”
In the passage above, God is speaking, and He confirms the existence of the office, the key, and the continuation of the office despite the change of office holder. In other words, the office of the royal steward continued even when the man who held the office died or was replaced by someone else. God Himself passes the key from one steward to the next.
In the New Testament, we learn that Jesus inherits the throne of his father, David.
Luke 1:31–33
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.
We also read the following:
Matthew 16:13-19
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome 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.
The passage quoted above from Matthew tells us that Jesus named Peter as His royal steward and gave him the “keys to the kingdom of heaven" as the symbol of his authority to speak in His name. Since Jesus is an eternal king, the office of royal steward in His kingdom will never end. Peter died as a martyr as Jesus foretold, but the successors of Peter have taken his place in the eternal office that Jesus established in His royal court.
In addition to the reference to a key or keys, note the following parallels:
"What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Is. 22:22)
"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mt. 16:19)
Jesus specifically referenced the passage from Isaiah when He appointed Peter. Peter has received authority from Jesus to speak in His name. To do so faithfully, Peter must not teach error; therefore, Peter (and his successors who hold the office) are protected by God through the charism of infallibility.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
The Catechism of the Catholic Church offers these explanations:
During his public life Jesus not only forgave sins, but also made plain the effect of this forgiveness: he reintegrated forgiven sinners into the community of the People of God from which sin had alienated or even excluded them. A remarkable sign of this is the fact that Jesus receives sinners at his table, a gesture that expresses in an astonishing way both God’s forgiveness and the return to the bosom of the People of God. (CCC 1443)
In imparting to his apostles his own power to forgive sins, the Lord also gives them the authority to reconcile sinners with the Church. This ecclesial dimension of their task is expressed most notably in Christ’s solemn words to Simon Peter: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of the apostles united to its head. (CCC 1444)
The words bind and loose mean: Whomever you exclude from your communion, will be excluded from communion with God; whomever you receive anew into your communion, God will welcome back into his. Reconciliation with the Church is inseparable from reconciliation with God. (CCC 1445)
During his public life Jesus not only forgave sins, but also made plain the effect of this forgiveness: he reintegrated forgiven sinners into the community of the People of God from which sin had alienated or even excluded them. A remarkable sign of this is the fact that Jesus receives sinners at his table, a gesture that expresses in an astonishing way both God’s forgiveness and the return to the bosom of the People of God. (CCC 1443)
In imparting to his apostles his own power to forgive sins, the Lord also gives them the authority to reconcile sinners with the Church. This ecclesial dimension of their task is expressed most notably in Christ’s solemn words to Simon Peter: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of the apostles united to its head. (CCC 1444)
The words bind and loose mean: Whomever you exclude from your communion, will be excluded from communion with God; whomever you receive anew into your communion, God will welcome back into his. Reconciliation with the Church is inseparable from reconciliation with God. (CCC 1445)
E
eddie_too
Guest
the reason readers might think you are not catholic is because of your repeatedly ignoring the teaching of the Church on the doctrine of infallibility.
you ask about peter lying and rejecting Jesus and say that proves he is not infallible while simultaneously ignoring that in those instances nothing peter did could in any way, using the doctrine of the RCC, be considered infallible.
you ask for proof of the doctrine of infallibility. then when proof is provided, you ask again as though you had not even read what was provided.
you refuse to tell your readers what is your definition of the “proof” you repeatedly request. you refuse to tell the readers what would satisfy your secret definition of proof that you request.
you have been provided with evidence from history, from theology, from sacred scripture and from human reason. you have ignored all of this evidence and continue to post as if everyone who has responded to you has only said, “gary, you are wrong”. that is obviously not been the responses to you.
if you cannot comprehend the points i am making in this post, it is you who are incapable of carrying on a normal intellectual discussion.
if you do comprehend them, then it is reasonable to conclude that your writing is unrelated to any reasonable search for common ground but instead appears to be soley intended to be an irritant to the good faith of the people you have engaged.
you ask about peter lying and rejecting Jesus and say that proves he is not infallible while simultaneously ignoring that in those instances nothing peter did could in any way, using the doctrine of the RCC, be considered infallible.
you ask for proof of the doctrine of infallibility. then when proof is provided, you ask again as though you had not even read what was provided.
you refuse to tell your readers what is your definition of the “proof” you repeatedly request. you refuse to tell the readers what would satisfy your secret definition of proof that you request.
you have been provided with evidence from history, from theology, from sacred scripture and from human reason. you have ignored all of this evidence and continue to post as if everyone who has responded to you has only said, “gary, you are wrong”. that is obviously not been the responses to you.
if you cannot comprehend the points i am making in this post, it is you who are incapable of carrying on a normal intellectual discussion.
if you do comprehend them, then it is reasonable to conclude that your writing is unrelated to any reasonable search for common ground but instead appears to be soley intended to be an irritant to the good faith of the people you have engaged.
G
Gary_Sheldrake
Guest
I have been pragmatic on the subject of this thread to the best of my ability, and have tried to make it clear that I am not on either side of the discussion on Apostolic Succession or Papal infallibility. I just want to understand both sides of the issue. I think I also mentioned that I am Catholic because that’s how I was raised, and that I’m not interested in changing those who might have been raised otherwise. Whether one side is wrong, the other right, or both are fine is not for me to say.
Good background on the cultural implication of keys at the time of Jesus.
I heard a another very interesting and perhaps even compelling view on the meaning of his passage from a non-Catholic once. I am wondering if any of the Protestants on this post will be familiar with and post that idea.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Peter-
In the Apologetics subforum we deal with two types of folks on a regular basis:
- The anti-Catholic who registers as a Catholic in order to engage us in “dialogue” without attracting attention too quickly. Their questions and issues are clever…always planting doubt about some point of doctrine. When they are answered with facts from scripture or history, they often get frustrated because they have not been able to control the discussion as they expected (since Catholics are known to be ignorant of the Bible!), Thus we smoke these folks out fairly quickly, and they are often banned in the process.
- The Cafeteria Catholic who proclaims loudly about how Catholic he or she is (often referencing their years in Catholic grade school or high school
) but whose arguments and questions demonstrate that they have very little knowledge of Catholicism and no intention of agreeing with Catholic teaching. These folks get VERY upset when their theological errors are shown to them, and they adamantly insist they are just as Catholic as anyone else, etc. Eventually, they get frustrated and leave on their own.
G
Gary_Sheldrake
Guest
Eddie: The world is full of Catholics like me. In fact, the only place I have ever met Catholics who care or know much about this subject is here on this forum. The matter never came up in CCD classes when I was a kid, nor did it come up in Catholic school, nor in any homily I have heard, nor in any discussion with any priests I have known. I once heard an off-hand reference to it from a nun - that’s it.
That said, asking questions that invite you and others to offer the reasoning behind these conclusions should not be an irritant in any way to anyone who has facts and is sure of what they believe.
As for evidence, I can surely see the argument that yourself and Randy and Patrick have presented, and you have provided some very good information. Conversely, some of your points haven’t been all that compelling (to me at least). I also see the arguments from Pocohombre as being very interesting as well. Your argument is not with me, because I don’t have an opinion. I just think it’s a rather curious subject and I am gathering what information from you I can. I find it curious because the lens from which you appear at least to view your relationship with God seems much more institutionalized and formal than mine. You sounded rather aghast when you mentioned that some Protestants saw Jesus as a friend, and I found that interesting as well that you should see that as a problem. Moreover, asking you questions and positing some ideas here and there are not intended to be a challenge to what you or anyone believes.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Gary-
As I said previously, if I have misjudged you, I ask your forgiveness.
I will do my best to answer whatever question(s) you have.
I need succinctness here: in one sentence, what is your highest priority question concerning anything related to Catholicism?
Thanks.
P
Peter_J
Guest
I don’t think it’s a question of hanging in. It’s more the old saying “The squeaky wheel gets the grease.” Specifically, if a Catholic poster challenges the Catholicity of his/her fellow Catholics, then he/she will get a lot of attention because readers will be inclined to think, Oh he/she must really know what he/she is talking about, since he/she even questions whether those other Catholic posters are real Catholics.
(Not meaning any offense to Randy, and noting that he’s posting in a very conciliar fashion.)
S
spina1953
Guest
I would like to respond to the Protestants ‘saw Jesus as a friend’ which you found interesting. in that I agree as a Discalced Carmelite Secular we see Jesus as a friend. St. Teresa says" that prayer is nothing more" in her opinion" than a intimate sharing between friends." This notion of prayer as a response to friendship gratuitously offered us by God through Christ is rooted in St. John’s Gospel. So I see nothing wrong if Protestants see Jesus as a friend as I am a Catholic and I see Jesus as a friend to whom I can be with in prayer and in life trying to follow His teachings as per the Catholic Church which does ask everyone of us to live the Gospel.
N
Nicea325
Guest
And here is where the problem lies among many “Bible-only” Christians. The Bible was not written to contain a list of legit names we should consider worthy. The Bible also does not contain a score of other names and an array of themes. The Bible is a book of faith.
E
eddie_too
Guest
gary s.
thanks for clarifying your background. it makes your posts more understandable.
the first obligation of every human being is to follow their conscience.
the second obligation is to continually develop or form or sensitize their conscience so that in following it they ensure themselves that they are traveling a pathway to perfect union with Perfect Being.
we cannot develop our consciences except by our own efforts.
why do i explain the above? because, you have revealed that your knowledge of the RC faith is very minimal. the fact is that you have not received good catechization. early in your life this resulted in little culpability for your lack of knowledge and understanding of the RC faith you had been given in baptism. however, as an adult, this impediment is not validly available.
you appear to recognize this because you are here hoping to learn more. that is not only most commendable but it is also meeting the requirements of living your life according to a well-formed conscience.
i congratulate you gary for being here. many kudos and prayers from me.
thanks for clarifying your background. it makes your posts more understandable.
the first obligation of every human being is to follow their conscience.
the second obligation is to continually develop or form or sensitize their conscience so that in following it they ensure themselves that they are traveling a pathway to perfect union with Perfect Being.
we cannot develop our consciences except by our own efforts.
why do i explain the above? because, you have revealed that your knowledge of the RC faith is very minimal. the fact is that you have not received good catechization. early in your life this resulted in little culpability for your lack of knowledge and understanding of the RC faith you had been given in baptism. however, as an adult, this impediment is not validly available.
you appear to recognize this because you are here hoping to learn more. that is not only most commendable but it is also meeting the requirements of living your life according to a well-formed conscience.
i congratulate you gary for being here. many kudos and prayers from me.
J
jmcrae
Guest
And if he had no authority over them, he would have had the same right to take that tone with them as the JW pastor down the street would have to take that tone with the pastor of a Baptist church 2,000 miles away. Corinth is not even in Italy - why wouldn’t a Bishop closer to the action have written these things to them? Why would a guy on a different continent stick his nose in their business, if all of them were equal?
G
Gary_Sheldrake
Guest
Dear Eddie: My knowledge of the Catholic faith is based on what I was taught by the Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary from ages 6 to 18. Their concern was that I knew such things as prayers, the meaning of sacraments and how these are infused into my day to day life as a human being. My relationship to God, as well as with my fellow humans and other creatures were their primary concern. My ability to see God in myself and others, and how to show love and regard for all things was perhaps in their estimation enough work for one lifetime. My lack of knowledge in regards to institutional abstracts and concerns are more to their credit than discredit in my thinking.
They also prepared me for a first class education that enabled me to have a career in science and technology, from which I gained a proclivity for critical thinking, which you may have misinterpreted as challenging the aspects of our faith that are of some import for you. That is not the case. I am not against you. I am only interested in why you think the things you think, and I am making no judgments about what you think.
- Status