Very confused on "No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church."

[inkaneer]

Hail, brother!

The “College of the Twelve” has a special place within the circle of apostles as indicated by Paul when he wrote that Jesus appeared “to the twelve,” later to “all of the apostles,” and finally to Paul himself as “the least of the apostles” (1 Cor 15:5, 7, 8). The larger group of apostles includes, for example, Barnabas, who is identified as an apostle in conjunction with Paul in Acts 14:14, and James the Lord’s brother as indicated by Paul in Galatians 1:19. The Twelve are distinguished by being chosen by Christ “to be with Him” during His earthly ministry (Mark 3:14), which was also a requirement for Judas’ replacement (cf. Acts 1:21-22).

In Christ,
Pete

You didn’t answer the question. Is Revelation 21:14 wrong when it limits the number of Apostles to twelve? Also, the word Apostle means one who is sent. If one is an apostle of Jesus that person must be sent by Jesus. Show me where Judas was sent by Jesus. Then show me where Matthias was sent by Jesus. I can show you where Paul was sent by Jesus.

 

[paul_c]

It is not difficult at all to show that Peter could not have been bishop of Rome based on the lack of greetings in mentioning such a prominent one as Peter. The fact that Paul never treaded on the ground where the church was established by another Apostle, which the beginning of Romans you can see that the there were Christians in Rome, but Paul wanted to come in order to “establish them”. Also as noted before, Peter would have been in direct violation to his duty to the Jews and Paul would have been trading on the other Apostle. It is clear that Peter was assigned to the Jews and spent much time in and around Jersusalem whereas Paul went all over the place seeking the gentiles as he was assigned. It is more likely that Simon Magnus, the magician rebuked by Paul, is the one who took prominence in Rome and not Simon Peter, but that is a whole different area I don’t want to enter. There is no coincidence that Mangnus is missing his head and the burial marked with Simeon Bar jona was found with other prominent figues in Jerusalem, which is exactly where Simeon Peter would have wanted to be buried being a Jew; the last place he would want to be laid to rest would be in pagan territory, but the truth of this matter will be known at the end.

Do you bother to investigate these claims before you write them? You can’t possibly prove that Peter wasn’t the bishop of Rome. Get familiar with the early church fathers. You will see that there is no question that Peter was at Rome. Start with Eusebius, " the History of the Church", written in 320AD. Its here for free: newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm

Read books 2, chapters 13-14 to see the relationship between Simon Magnus and Simon Peter. Educate yourself… As for the burial of Simon Peter in Jerusalem, it lacks credibility and has never been taken seriously by scholars, secular or clerical.

 

[paul_c]

You didn’t answer the question. Is Revelation 21:14 wrong when it limits the number of Apostles to twelve? Also, the word Apostle means one who is sent. If one is an apostle of Jesus that person must be sent by Jesus. Show me where Judas was sent by Jesus. Then show me where Matthias was sent by Jesus. I can show you where Paul was sent by Jesus.

Why are you pressing this? Paul was clearly an important Saint and Apostle but why the big debate about who is worthy of being called one of the 12? What difference does it make in the discussion of salvation?

Revelations is largely symbolic. and Matthias was definitely sent by Jesus. He was one of the 70 and was chosen to replace Judas in Acts 1 while Saul was still persecuting the Christians. Sure, Paul was called by Jesus but Jesus never called him an Apostle, did he? The first time Paul is ever called an apostle is in Acts 14:14 and it is in conjuction with Barnabas:
The apostles Barnabas and Paul tore their garments when they heard this and rushed out into the crowd.

 

[Pete_Holter]

You didn’t answer the question. Is Revelation 21:14 wrong when it limits the number of Apostles to twelve? Also, the word Apostle means one who is sent. If one is an apostle of Jesus that person must be sent by Jesus. Show me where Judas was sent by Jesus. Then show me where Matthias was sent by Jesus. I can show you where Paul was sent by Jesus.

Sorry. I was meaning to suggest that Revelation is referring to the College of the Twelve.

Matthew calls Judas an apostle when he says that “The names of the twelve apostles are these” (Matthew 10:2). Mark tells us that Jesus gave them all the name of “apostle”: “And He appointed twelve (whom he also named apostles) so that they might be with him and he might send them out to preach” (Mark 3:14; cf. Luke 6:13).

Jesus “sent” Judas in Matthew 10:5 (cf. Mark 6:7, Luke 9:1).

Matthias was chosen to replace Judas in order to “take his office” (Acts 1:20). His appointment came through Jesus, Who is the Lord that the Apostles petitioned in prayer for this selection: “You, Lord, Who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place” (Acts 1:24-25).

Your brother in the LORD,
Pete

 

[Pete_Holter]

Funny, the previous post Paul believes they are Catholic but you say if they were here you believe they would be “Catholic”. One of you knows with certainty and the other with little doubt. There was no “Catholic” then, so both of you would be wrong. That term was used in its original meaning which is universal, not in its present for of “Universal Church in Rome”. You all tell me to read more about these folks, but you have a tendency to misrepresent them in my opinion and even when Augustine makes the brilliant connection you still deny it although he should it from Scripture and I also did and even elaborated more to confirm further what he said and yet you still do not believe even what Augustine said. Paul adds the twist that they happen at the same time, which accord more with Catholic doctrine, but Scripture tells a different story. The Holy Spirit is given to this the moment they believe the gospel by faith according to God and then they are water baptized. Please let us not go back in circles to Acts 2:38, where then we go back to Acts 10 & 11 et al. You hold you belief and I will hold mine and as I have repeatedly said there will be those in heaven on both sides of the isle.

Hi Beth!

Again, please forgive my typos and other mistakes in this and the following posts.

“[Emeritus] cannot have salvation, except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church he can have everything except salvation. He can have honor, he can have Sacraments, he can sing alleluia, he can answer amen, he can possess the gospel, he can have and preach faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; but never except in the Catholic Church will he be able to find salvation” (Sermo ad Caesariensis Ecclesiae Plebem, translation taken from Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers).

There were many heresies in the early church. We call them Manichees, Donatists, Pelagians, Arians, Valentinians, Montanists, Tertullianists, Ebionites, Marcionites, etc. and we miss the fact that these are the Christians of the early church who had broken unity with the Catholic Christian Church. Since the reformation of the 16th century, we have Presbyterians, Lutherans, Baptists, Pentecostals, Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, Amish, Mennonites, Anglicans, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. and they are called Christians, or call themselves Christians, in our own day.

In the quote above, Augustine was talking about membership in the Catholic Church specifically. For example, in writing a response to a Rogatist (another sect of Christians who themselves had separated from the sect known as the Donatists), he says to Vincentius, “I have received a letter which I believe to be from you to me: at least I have not thought this incredible, for the person who brought it is one whom I know to be a Catholic Christian.” In the same letter, he refers to the Roman “emperors, especially those who are Catholic Christians” (Letter 93). He tells us that the heretics also call themselves “Christian” as when writing against the Manichean he mentions “the name of Christian, in which you [Faustus] also glory” (, Bk. 12, No. 24Contra Faustum). And so we see Augustine distinguishing between Christians who are Catholic and Christians who are not.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Augustine wonders how many non Catholic Christians ran the risk of being cut off from the promises of God by failing to return to unity with the Catholic Church:

“How many would have entered earlier had not the calumnies of slanderers, who declared that we offered something else than we do upon the altar of God, shut them out! How many, believing that it mattered not to which party a Christian might belong, remained in the schism of Donatus only because they had been born in it, and no one was compelling them to forsake it and pass over into the Catholic Church!” (Letter 93)

And again:

“How can we be sure that we have indisputable testimony to Christ in the Divine Word, if we do not accept as indisputable the testimony of the same Word to the Church? For as, however ingenious the complex subtleties which one may contrive against the simple truth, and however great the mist of artful fallacies with which he may obscure it, anyone who shall proclaim that Christ has not suffered, and has not risen from the dead on the third day, must be accursed— because we have learned in the truth of the gospel, ‘that it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead on the third day’ (Luke 24:46); — on the very same grounds must that man be accursed who shall proclaim that the Church is outside of the communion which embraces all nations: for in the next words of the same passage we learn also that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem; and we are bound to hold firmly this rule, ‘If any preach any other gospel unto you than that you have received, let him be accursed’ (Galatians 1:9)” (Letter 93).

He laments over the divisions caused by Christians who break from the Catholic Church:

“‘There was a coat’ there: let us see what kind; ‘woven from the top throughout.’ What does the coat woven from the top signify, but charity? What does this coat signify, but unity? Consider this coat, which not even the persecutors of Christ divided. For it says, ‘They said among themselves, Let us not divide it, but let us cast lots upon it.’ Behold that of which the psalm spoke! Christ’s persecutors did not rend His garment; Christians divide the Church!” (The Gospel of John, Tractate 13)

In the following quote he discusses the notion of how a breakaway group of Christians cannot consider themselves to be a part of the Church because they are not in union with the Church founded by Christ and His apostles, which is “spread over the whole world”:

“Do you happen to know why it should be that Christ should lose his inheritance, which is spread over the whole world, and should suddenly be found surviving only in the Africans, and not in all of them? The Catholic Church exists indeed in Africa, since God willed and ordained that it should exist throughout the whole world. Whereas your party, which is called the party of Donatus, does not exist in all those places in which the writings of the apostles, their discourse, and their actions have been current” (Letter 49, 3, quoted in The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism).

Note here that, to Augustine’s mind, to be in communion with Christ’s Church requires being in communion with the local churches established in the times of the apostles. For schismatics “themselves are swept away who read in the Holy Scriptures the names of churches to which the apostles wrote, and in which they have no bishop. For what could more clearly prove their perversity and their folly, than their saying to their clergy, when they read these letters, ‘Peace be with you,’ at the very time that they are themselves disjoined from the peace of those churches to which the letters were originally written?” (Letter 53).

 

[Pete_Holter]

Again, he writes:

“[T]here are many other things which most justly keep me in [the bosom of the Catholic Church]. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church” (, Ch. 4Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus).

From “the very seat of the Apostle Peter” means first of all that we have communion with the Catholic Church by having communion with the “the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished” (Letter 43).

‘For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: ‘Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!’ (Matthew 16:18) The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these:— [etc.,] whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa” (Letter 53).

This is what Augustine means when he talks about “the Catholic Church.”

As for baptism, if Augustine didn’t believe that water baptism bestowed the forgiveness of sins and the reception of the Holy Spirit, why would he say that “faith suffered me not to be at rest in regard to my past sins, which were not yet forgiven me by Your baptism” (, Bk. 9, Ch. 4Confessions)? By your reckoning he was forgiven through faith alone. But this is not what Augustine believed and believes. Here is his express faith concerning baptism:

“For what Christian is there who would allow it to be said, that any one could attain to eternal salvation without being born again in Christ,— [a result] which He meant to be effected through baptism, at the very time when such a sacrament was purposely instituted for regenerating in the hope of eternal salvation? Whence the apostle says: ‘Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us by the laver of regeneration’ (Titus 3:5)” (, Bk. 1, Ch. 23On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants).

Augustine holds that to be Christian is to believe in baptismal regeneration being sacramentally bestowed. Please consider more carefully what Augustine is saying in his tractate on the Gospel of John. You said that his was a “brilliant connection” in your last post, but when I first presented this teaching to you, you referred to it as a “confounded explanation.”

Consider the verses that he is trying to bring together. He is reconciling the verses that say on the one hand that Jesus was baptizing and on the other that He was not baptizing, but only His disciples. Augustine’s harmonization entails believing that when the disciple of Christ baptizes, it is Jesus Himself Who is baptizing. This is why Augustine says that “Jesus, therefore, is still baptizing; and so long as we continue to be baptized, Jesus baptizes. Let a man come without fear to the minister below; for he has a Master above.” He is telling us to come to the earthly minister of baptism who touches the body (“Jesus baptized not”) in order that we may be baptized by the Heavenly Baptizer Who cleanses (“Jesus baptized”). As “long as we continue to be baptized [by earthly ministers], Jesus baptizes [thereby].”

And yet, in another sense, the whole baptism, including the use of water, is Christ’s. That is why Augustine goes on to say in this tractate “that it is He that baptizes, not only with the Spirit, but also with water” and that if we “take away the water, it is no baptism.” The whole baptism is Christ’s because, although we administer the water, He is the One Who makes the water efficacious: “with the renewed help of your pious attention and good wishes, it will likewise become clear to you, wherefore John with regard to that matter which he learned regarding the Lord, namely, that it is ‘He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost,’ and that to none of His servants had he transferred the power of baptizing” …] “Therefore see, give heed to the words of the apostles. None of the apostles said, ‘my baptism.’ Although there was one gospel of all, yet thou findest that they said, ‘my gospel’ (cf. Rom 16:25): thou dost not find that they say, ‘my baptism’” (Tractate 5).

In Christ,
Pete

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
But what Paul preached is not the issue. I say Paul preached the gospel but did not write ithe full gospel in his letters. You are trying to put words in my mouth that Paul did not preach and write the full gospel. That is not what I said Nor is it what you said initially either. Your exact words were:

“If you claim as you did that the writings of Paul do not contain the full gospel, then you are spiritually appraised and know not the gospel.”

Now you want to back off of that statement and try to say that he preached the full gospel. This is not about what Paul preached, its about what he wrote. I stand by my original sttaement which is that the writings of Paul are remedial in nature and do not contain the full gospel. Now if you are so vain that you cannot admit you are in error then further discussion with you by anyone is an exercise in futility.

Here is exactly what I just posted which you responded to just now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth
He wrote the words he also preached which is the gospel.
Here is a full exposition of the gospel written by Paul
3 For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another. 4 But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, 5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

This is but one example of what Paul wrote; the problem seems to be that you do not know or understand what the gospel or “good news of Jesus Christ” is. There is every indication that what he spoke is also what he wrote. If Paul went around and the only thing he ever said was what I put down in Titus; he would have been faithful in preaching the gospel.

You say, “There is every indication that what he spoke is also what he wrote.” All you have to do to convince me is show me from an authoritative source where Paul stated that. Of course that means from scripture. Quite frankly you can tell me, “There is every indication that what he spoke is also what he wrote.” till you are blue in the face and it would be only your opinion and worth absolutely nothing. You are a sola scripturist are you not? Then show me where Paul said everything he preached he also wrote.

 

[inkaneer]

It is not difficult at all to show that Peter could not have been bishop of Rome based on the lack of greetings in mentioning such a prominent one as Peter. The fact that Paul never treaded on the ground where the church was established by another Apostle, which the beginning of Romans you can see that the there were Christians in Rome, but Paul wanted to come in order to “establish them”. Also as noted before, Peter would have been in direct violation to his duty to the Jews and Paul would have been trading on the other Apostle. It is clear that Peter was assigned to the Jews and spent much time in and around Jersusalem whereas Paul went all over the place seeking the gentiles as he was assigned. It is more likely that Simon Magnus, the magician rebuked by Paul, is the one who took prominence in Rome and not Simon Peter, but that is a whole different area I don’t want to enter. There is no coincidence that Mangnus is missing his head and the burial marked with Simeon Bar jona was found with other prominent figues in Jerusalem, which is exactly where Simeon Peter would have wanted to be buried being a Jew; the last place he would want to be laid to rest would be in pagan territory, but the truth of this matter will be known at the end.

Quite the contrary it is easy to show that Peter was indeed the bishop of Rome. We have the testimony of the early christian writers on that very point. For instance the early church historian Eusebius bishop of Caesarea writes:

“[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [A.D. 42]: The apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years” (The Chronicle [A.D. 303]).

Then there was Optatus who wrote in 367 AD:

“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

There is also the The Poem Against the Marcionites

"In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter in mighty Rome commanded Linus, the first elected, to sit down. After him, Cletus too accepted the flock of the fold. As his successor, Anacletus was elected by lot. Clement follows him, well-known to apostolic men. After him Evaristus ruled the flock without crime. Alexander, sixth in succession, commends the fold to Sixtus. After his illustrious times were completed, he passed it on to Telesphorus. He was excellent, a faithful martyr . . . " (Poem Against the Marcionites 276–284 [A.D. 267]).

And there is this from The Little Labyrinth:

“Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter” (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).

Many of the writers also write of Peter’s death in Rome also but I’ll save them.

 

[Pete_Holter]

XBaptist!

After declaring that “There is indeed one universal church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved,” the IV Council of Lateran went on to say that “the sacrament of baptism is consecrated in water at the invocation of the undivided Trinity – namely Father, Son and holy Spirit – and brings salvation to both children and adults when it is correctly carried out by anyone in the form laid down by the church” (4th Lateran Council). This agrees with Vatican II where it says “that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism” have “the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit” (Unitatis Redintegratio). The reason why they have these things is because they are all bestowed by baptism. The Council of Trent taught that “man, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and charity,” and that “the instrumental cause [of justification] is the sacrament of baptism” (Decree on Justification, Ch. 7).

When Pope Boniface VIII wrote, “we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff” (Unam Sanctam), he was drawing from the teaching of Thomas Aquinas who had already held and taught the same thing:

It is also shown that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. For Cyril says in his Thesaurus: “Therefore, brethren, if we imitate Christ so as to hear his voice remaining in the Church of Peter and so as not be puffed up by the wind of pride, lest perhaps because of our quarrelling the wily serpent drive us from paradise as once he did Eve.” And Maximus in the letter addressed to the Orientals says: “The Church united and established upon the rock of Peter’s confession we call according to the decree of the Savior the universal Church, wherein we must remain for the salvation of our souls and wherein loyal to his faith and confession we must obey him” (, Part II, Ch. 38Contra Errores Graecorum).

Baptism places us in the Church. And we are then subject to the Pope unless we willfully and intentionally refuse to submit to him. Thomas Aquinas wrote of schism, saying

“As Isidore says (Etym. viii, 3), schism takes its name ‘from being a scission of minds,’ and scission is opposed to unity. Wherefore the sin of schism is one that is directly and essentially opposed to unity. For in the moral, as in the physical order, the species is not constituted by that which is accidental. Now, in the moral order, the essential is that which is intended, and that which results beside the intention, is, as it were, accidental. Hence the sin of schism is, properly speaking, a special sin, for the reason that the schismatic intends to sever himself from that unity which is the effect of charity: because charity unites not only one person to another with the bond of spiritual love, but also the whole Church in unity of spirit.

“Accordingly schismatics properly so called are those who, wilfully and intentionally separate themselves from the unity of the Church; for this is the chief unity, and the particular unity of several individuals among themselves is subordinate to the unity of the Church, even as the mutual adaptation of each member of a natural body is subordinate to the unity of the whole body. Now the unity of the Church consists in two things; namely, in the mutual connection or communion of the members of the Church, and again in the subordination of all the members of the Church to the one head, according to Colossians 2:18-19: ‘Puffed up by the sense of his flesh, and not holding the Head, from which the whole body, by joints and bands, being supplied with nourishment and compacted, groweth unto the increase of God.’ Now this Head is Christ Himself, Whose viceregent in the Church is the Sovereign Pontiff. Wherefore schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy” (, Question 39Summa Theologica, Secunda Secundae Partis).

Because schism is something that is “willfully and intentionally” chosen, it does not apply to Christians who have not personally made this choice. The person born into a “schismatic group” shares in the result of the original schism “accidentally” and are not culpable for this sin until they choose it for themselves by willfully and intentionally rejecting communion with the Catholic Church. This is the meaning of Pope Boniface in Unam Sanctam. And this is the same definition of schism in the current Code of Canon Law: “schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him” (, Canon 751CIC).

Unitatis Redintegratio is correct in saying that the “children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation.” They only become guilty of it when they choose it for themselves by willfully rejecting communion with the Catholic Church.

In Christ,
Pete

 

[Pete_Holter]

XBaptist. Me again.

Pope Eugene IV:

The “holy Roman church… firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church” (Council of Florence).

Pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics are not in the Church and will not be saved “unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives.” We’ll look at heretics and schismatics first.

The same Council of Florence teaches that “by baptism we are reborn spiritually” and that “the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as He is.” “Holy baptism holds the first place among all the sacraments, for it is the gate of the spiritual life; through it we become members of Christ and of the body of the church.” Until we become guilty of heresy or schism or are excommunicated, we remain in the Church after our baptism.

We’ve taken a look at what constitutes schism, but we haven’t really talked about the definition of heresy. Heresy is “the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith” (, Canon 751CIC). Obstinacy is essential to the definition of heresy as Augustine explained:

“ ‘A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted and sins, being condemned of himself’ (Titus 3:10-11). But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics” (Letter 43).

Augustine gives his definition again:

“Those, therefore, in the Church of Christ who savor anything morbid and depraved, and, on being corrected that they may savor what is wholesome and right, contumaciously resist, and will not amend their pestiferous and deadly dogmas, but persist in defending them, become heretics, and, going without, are to be reckoned as enemies” (, Bk. 18, Ch. 51City of God).

Thomas Aquinas picks up on both of these elaborated definitions in his article on heresy. In keeping with this understanding, which was certainly the understanding that held sway at the time of Florence, Protestants are not ipso facto heretics and schismatics, but only such Protestants as fit the accepted definitions.

Heretics and schismatics are not in the Church and will not be saved if they die without repentance.

In Christ,
Pete

 

[mpjw2]

David

you answered my question…

after you make a confession, don’t you feel clean and pure and know in your heart that if you were to die at that very moment you will go to heaven?

you said

What I feel is irrelevant. Feelings are fleeting and a not an indication of true love. Nothing impure enters heaven, and not one of us is 100% pure when we leave this earth in death.

are you 100% sure David?

what does this verse mean to you?

In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace Ephesians 1:7

I said

Concern was expressed about sins on ones’ soul which may have been forgotten.

if it applies…next time you confess to God, ask Him to forgive all your sin …those you knowingly express and those which you long forgot about.

Having done so…what is there after you confess which would prevent you from entering heaven
I can not think of anything can you??

you said

Yes, obedience must follow repentence.

David you missed my point.

I will spell it out so there is no misunderstanding…

You make a sincere contrite confession to God of the sins you commit and ask for forgiveness of all sins you forgot.

after saying your confession prayer, it is exactly 1:00 pm
at 1:00:009 you suffer a massive heart attack and die.

do you believe God has totally forgiven you, your soul in pure as white fallen snow, and you will spend eternity in heaven because you just fininshed confession a fraction of a second prior to your death?

thank you

God bless

mpjw

 

[mpjw2]

Paul thank you for answering my argee questions. It is interestiong that you did not outright disagree with anyone of them hmmmmmmmm?

Yes, salvation is a personal choice. You either choose to follow Jesus by loving God and others and be saved or else you are condemned. Catholics believe you need grace to overcome sin and that grace is gained through the sacraments. This is a huge problem for non-catholics who don’t partake of the live giving sacraments.

paul …out of the seven sacraments…Baptism Eucharist Reconciliation Confirmation Marriage Holy Orders Anointing of the Sick I do not participate in one… Holy Orders

Yes. Catholics believe that Jesus was without sin. They also believe Mary was without sin.

wow I did not know this. Mary was an ordinary girl. Why do you believe she was afraid when the angel first talked to her about having favor with God and being informed she was going to have a child and the fact she was not with any man?

Yes, Catholics agree that we can not enter heaven without our sins being forgiven and purged away. Forgiven through the sacraments and our sinful nature being removed through penance and repentance, This my require time in purgatory if we have not attained holiness during life. You must end your life in the state of grace to go to heaven.

if by grace you mean ones sins totally forgiven …
I agree

Of course Jesus died for our sins. That does not excuse us to sin
agree there is no excuse to sin…but we are human and we are not perfect and will sin again on occasion

, however. It provided the example and the grace to allow us to be saved. Without Jesus’ we could not be saved. But belief in this fact is not sufficient for salvation alone. We need to cooperate with his grace and choose life.

I agree we need to cooperate with Jesus and the guidance of the Holy Spirit and choose life over death (sinful acts)

Sure, Jesus’ paschal sacrifice was necessary for the forgiveness of sins. But that is not all that is required.

I agree

As you have pointed out, you need to confess your sins and be truly repentent. If you do this sacramentally, **you will be absolved of your sins by the priest **who has been given this authority through apostolic succession.

Paul I am glad you stated this.

a priest does not absolve (forgive) you sins …God does and only God.

Paul if you are at home reading this and at some point you lied to a member of your family…you just sinned.

what are you going to do?

wait till the next time you go to confeeion at church before a priest to confess it or sy a prayer to God right where you are and confess it.

The reason I ask, that lie you told will prevent you from going to heaven unless you are forgiven of that sin, right?

If you catch yourself in sin and confess it to God, He will forgive you and a priest does not have to be in your home when you make this confession to God…Do you belive that?>

Thank you

mpjw

 

[davidv]

David

you answered my question…

you said

are you 100% sure David?

Yes

what does this verse mean to you?

In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace Ephesians 1:7

From the CCC:

517 Christ’s whole life is a mystery of redemption. Redemption comes to us above all through the blood of his cross,179 but this mystery is at work throughout Christ’s entire life:

• already in his Incarnation through which by becoming poor he enriches us with his poverty;180
• in his hidden life which by his submission atones for our disobedience;181
• in his word which purifies its hearers;182
• in his healings and exorcisms by which “he took our infirmities and bore our diseases”;183 - and in his Resurrection by which he justifies us.184

I said

you said

David you missed my point.

I will spell it out so there is no misunderstanding…

You make a sincere contrite confession to God of the sins you commit and ask for forgiveness of all sins you forgot.

after saying your confession prayer, it is exactly 1:00 pm
at 1:00:009 you suffer a massive heart attack and die.

do you believe God has totally forgiven you, your soul in pure as white fallen snow, and you will spend eternity in heaven because you just fininshed confession a fraction of a second prior to your death?

thank you

God bless

mpjw

No misunderstanding on my part. In your highly improbably scenerio above I would be certain that would have died without any unrepentent sins and would be on my way to heaven. I am equally certain that I would not be purified of all the effects of past sins. I would be required to undergo some serious purging before see the Lord face-to-face.

 

[Des]

You are not trusting by faith; how He works His sovereignty and yet the human is fully responsible is a mystery and iIs issue. You are not walking by faith, but by your own understanding of what is fair and what is not.

No beth. I reject your doctrines of men. It is those that I have no faith in. And you completely skipped over my questions.Don’t worry though, I have more for you.

I do not recall what you said in regards to sin and the relationship with God, but sin only hinders our walk and spiritual growth by grieving the Holy Spirit.

The temptation of sin is a trial to every Christian. Even you my dear. Because if you do not endure till the end, you will not be saved.

Jesus said: Mark 13:13 And you shall be hated by all men for my name’s sake. But he that shall endure unto the end, he shall be saved.

Why didn’t Jesus just say: “And you shall be hated by all men for my name’s sake however, since you are saved, you will endure till the end.” Would have simplified things alot don’t you think?

Jesus said sanctify them in your truth; your word is truth. hopefully as one matures the pattern of godliness increases while the sin decreases and thus we become more and more conformed to His image, which is the goal.

You talk like sin is ‘supposed’ to be a part of our lives and it can’t be helped. But again, what did Jesus say, (and I will enlarge the important words so you can’t miss them this time) Matt: 7:21 Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

When you sin, are you doing God’s will? NO!!!

And here’s the other I threw at you which you seemed to happily ignore because you know you do not have an answer.

John 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.

What you do Beth is you take snippets from you Bible, and create entire doctrines out of them, forcing other verses to obey even when they contradict. It’s easy to relate to the Catholic doctrine of Salvation with all of these verses put together. However, it’s not so easy for someone like yourself who hits and stumbles across such verses.

 

[CoG]

Xbaptist

The answer to your question is simple. The keys to the kingdom is given to the Catholic Church. This in itself states that salvation is through the Catholic Church. It does not say that you must be Catholic to have salvation. It says that the Church defines who and how salvation takes place. The Church with the guidance of the Holy Spirit has laid out the requirements for salvation for those not in total communion with the Church.
It is not in the interest of the Church to deny salvation to anyone, but for the greater good salvation must be denied in some cases. For example, someone that teaches against the intent of God must be considered as being outside of salvation. The Church has the obligation to state this disconnect so that others may not be lead astray.

 

[fxcc]

Jesus did not say … And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on you Peter, I will build My church…

Huh? Jesus didn’t say that? Every Bible I’ve read says that’s pretty much exactly what He did say!

What do **you **imagine Jesus said? Wait! I know! He said, “You are Peter and **on your faith **I will build my Church.” That’s what Jesus is supposed to have said, right? Or that’s what you reckon He meant, right?

So … shall we have a look at what Jesus **actually **said and from that try to conclude what He actually **meant **and did? Shall we?

Firstly, Jesus changed Simon Bar Jonah’s name to “Peter”. Actually He changed it to “kepha”. He used that word, “kepha” or “Cephas”, in Aramaic (the language in which He spoke). Now in Aramaic, the word “kepha” means rock.

So Simon got renamed “Peter” = “kepha” = “rock”, right?

Now we’ll see a bit later why this name (“rock”) which Jesus chose for Simon wasn’t just any old name, but one that was very significant. In fact, we’ll also see that the word itself gives us a powerful clue about Jesus’ intention and action! But bear with me for a moment.

Jesus’ exact words to Peter were “You are kepha (Peter) and upon this kepha (Peter) I will build my church”.

Now some people claim that by these words Jesus meant “You are Peter and **on your profession of faith in me **I will build my church”. But how could Jesus mean this when He didn’t use any word for faith, or make any reference to it, in His sentence at all?

As every serious Catholic knows, this idea - this notion that Jesus was referring to the **faith **of Peter and not to Peter himself - is just a desperate (and scripturally unprovable) interpretation, which Christians who simply don’t **want **to accept the God-given authority of the Vicar of Christ (and his infallible teachings) have devised, to try to justify their disobedience.

The **hard **fact of the matter is this: there is **no **reference **at all **in these words of Jesus, to the faith of Peter. None whatsoever! Nor is such a meaning attributable to them because of some other complementary or supplementary passage of Scripture. Rather, the **parallelism **in Jesus’ words, of **you **are rock’ and ‘on **this rock **I will build’ clearly shows that the second rock can **only **be the same one as the first (Peter). Jesus is not referring to Peter’s **faith **(or talking about any other quality or virtue of his!), Jesus is referring to **Peter himself **- Peter, to whom He has just given the wonderful name “Rock” - a word loaded with deep and powerful Biblical meaning, as we shall soon see.

Now there is a **second **parallelism in these words of Jesus, which sheds further light on them. “You are Peter,” parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ.” As if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, now I will tell you who **you **are.” And that’s exactly what Jesus does! He tells Peter: You are Peter… you are rock … indeed, the rock on which I will build my Church!

But wait, there’s more!

There is a **third **Biblical parallel to help us understand what Jesus was saying/doing when He uttered those important words. He was **paralleling **Simon Peter to Abraham! Abraham too stood at the beginning of the people of God. He too had his name changed (from Abram to Abraham, meaning “father of many nations”). That’s right! Father … papa … pope … you get the drift!!! Is this really a rational parallel - between Abraham and Peter? You decide! Abraham **too **is referred to in Scripture as … guess what? … yep, you got it! … a rock. What sort of rock? A rock from which the entire nation of Israel was hewn! That’s right! And no, it wasn’t Abraham’s **faith **that was referred to by God as rock, but Abraham himself! Read Isaiah 51:1-2. So now, in the New Testament, we find the same thing with Peter. **He **stands at the beginning of the new people of God and receives the same Hebraic description ‘rock’ to mark his leadership over God’s people of the New Covenant, notwithstanding (or indeed following from) the fact that Jesus Himself is the ultimate Rock, the Cornerstone, of His Church.

All this paralleling and stuff besides (some people don’t get these things, especially among those who rely solely on private interpretations of Scripture), Jesus puts the fact of Peter’s (and his successors’) leadership and authority over His Church **way **beyond all dispute when straight after renaming him, he promises to **Peter **- to Peter **specifically **- the keys of His Kingdom (the spiritually restored Davidic Kingdom, the Kingdom of God, the Church) along with the ministerial power to “bind” and “loose” in that Kingdom.

*“I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” *(Matt 16: 19)

What was the power of the keys Jesus promised to Peter? What were the keys which Jesus was referring to anyway? What comes with these keys? Have a careful read of Isaiah’s prophecy in the matter:

“I will place the key of the **House of David **on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open”( Is 22:22)

(continued in next post…)

 

[fxcc]

The primacy and authority of Peter in the Church is confirmed by such a vast amount of evidence in the Bible that truly, only the blindest of the blind can fail to see it.

IT IS PETER WHO JESUS, AT THE VERY START OF HIS MINISTRY, PREDICTS WILL BE THE ROCK!
*“Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two who heard John and followed Jesus. He first found his own brother Simon and told him, “We have found the Messiah” (which is translated Anointed). Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas" (which is translated Peter)”. *John 1: 40-42

Notice that Jesus predicts this about Peter even **before **He’s chosen His 12 Apostles! How amazing! Even though Simon (Peter) wouldn’t have had a clue at that stage what Jesus was talking about, the Lord was already indicating to him that he would be a key part of His Plan of Salvation for mankind! Notice too, how, in this passage, right in the **very first chapter **of his gospel, St John takes the trouble to explain, in parallel, the meanings of **both **the words, “Messiah” and then “Kepha” - who will one day be the Messiah’s representative on earth! Co-incidence? :nope: Anyway, let’s keep going.

IT IS PETER WHO IS ALWAYS MENTIONED FIRST IN SCRIPTURE, AS FOREMOST APOSTLE!
*“The names of the twelve apostles are these: **first, Simon called Peter *…” (Matt 10:2)

“… he appointed the twelve: Simon, whom he named Peter; James, son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James …” (Mark 3:16-17)

“… he called his disciples to himself, and from them he chose Twelve, whom he also named apostles: Simon, whom he named Peter, and his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew …” (Luke 6:13-14)

*“When they entered the city they went to the upper room where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew …” *(Acts 1:13)

“Peter and his companions had been overcome by sleep …” (Luke 9:32)

IT IS PETER WHO SPEAKS FOR THE APOSTLES!
*“And he asked them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ **Peter *said to him in reply, ‘You are the Messiah.’” (Mark 8:29)

“Then Peter approaching asked him, ‘Lord, if my brother sins against me, how often must I forgive him?’” (Mt 18:21)

*“Then Peter said, ‘Lord, is this parable meant for **us *or for everyone?’” (Luke 12:41)

**“Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall **we **go? You have the words of eternal life. **We **have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.” **(John 6: 68-69)

IT IS PETER WHO JESUS COMMANDS TO “FEED MY SHEEP”!
“When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?’ He said to him, ‘Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.’ He said to him, ‘Feed my lambs.’ He then said to him a second time, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me?’ He said to him, ‘Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.’ He said to him, ‘Tend my sheep.’ He said to him the third time, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me?’ Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, ‘Do you love me?’ and he said to him, ‘Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Feed my sheep’”. (John 21: 15-17)

IT IS PETER (AND ONLY PETER), WHOSE MARTYRDOM, BY CRUCIFIXION, SUCH AS JESUS’ VERY OWN, JESUS PREDICTS!
*“‘Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.’ He said this signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God.” *(John 21: 18-19)

IT IS PETER WHOSE FAITH JESUS PRAYS FOR AND IT IS PETER WHO JESUS COMMANDS TO STRENGTHEN HIS BROTHERS!
*“‘Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that **your own faith **may not fail; and once **you **have turned back, **you **must strengthen your brothers.’” *(Luke 22: 31-32)

IT IS PETER WHO PREACHES FIRST AFTER PENTECOST!
*“Then **Peter **stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice, and proclaimed to them, "You who are Jews, indeed all of you staying in Jerusalem. Let this be known to you, and listen to my words.” *Acts 2:14

*“… they asked Peter and the other apostles, “What are we to do, my brothers?” **Peter **said to them, "Repent and be baptized …” *Acts 2: 37-38).

IT IS PETER TO WHOM IT IS REVEALED THAT GENTILES ALSO ARE TO BE BAPTIZED!
*“The circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit should have been poured out on the Gentiles also, for they could hear them speaking in tongues and glorifying God. Then **Peter **responded, ‘Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people, who have received the holy Spirit even as we have?’ He **ordered *them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” (Acts 10:45-48).

IT IS PETER WHO WORKS THE FIRST HEALING AMONG THE APOSTLES!
**“But Peter looked intently at him, as did John, and said, ‘Look at us.’ He paid attention to them, expecting to receive something from them. **Peter **said, ‘I have neither silver nor gold, but what I do have I give you: in the name of Jesus Christ the Nazorean, (rise and) walk.’ Then **Peter took him by the right hand and raised him up, and immediately his feet and ankles grew strong.” (Acts 3: 4-7)

OK, enough. I don’t need to add any more, do I? Even the non Christians in the room are throwing up their hands and saying, “OK, OK, point taken! We see it, we believe it: your Christ installed Peter as your first Pope and gave him some truly awesome powers and responsibilities!”

(continued in next post…)

 

[fxcc]

My friends, when I was catholic, I never sw the bible as a personal applicatin from God God.

That probably explains why, so sadly, you’ve left the one true Church which Jesus founded. You could give it another try, you know! Learn the faith - properly. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which spells it out so well. Discover the full force of the mighty Truth that sets us free from the chains of darkness and sin. Ask whatever questions you want, of knowledgeable Catholics, with a sincere keenness for truth. Don’t look to understand the faith from the enemies of the Church who, sadly, tell so many lies about her faith doctrines and worship practices, mandated by no other than God Himself.

If you do these things, hopefully you’ll arrive at a stage where it’ll hit you right between the eyes one day that **Jesus Christ Himself **waits for you **in person **in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar. That Jesus Christ, who offers you not just a Good Book but His very own self, over and over again, saying, “Truly, truly, I say to you unless you eat my flesh, which is food indeed and drink my blood, which is drink indeed, you have no life in you.”

Then, you can be done with wandering in a zone that’s empty of the powerful graces of God’s essential sacraments, especially sacramental Reconciliation and the Eucharist. Then, with a simple and **total **assent of faith in **Jesus’ **own words, you can come home to Him for good!

The only way Jesus’s church servives is by all our faith in Him.

Uh-oh! I thought Jesus was God and didn’t have need of anything or anyone (all of us included)! Now it seems like He’s dependent on us for at least one of His projects to survive, after all!

God wants us to do good yes … but without having jesus first and foremost in our lives, our good works are meaningless.

**Not **true.

God tells us, through His true Church, that no good work is “meaningless”. Every **good **deed has intrinsic value in His eyes, regardless of one’s knowledge or ignorance of Christ. Remember the Good Samaritan? Remember Simon the Cyrenian?

Here’s Church teaching on the subject for you.

“Those also can attain to salvation, who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.” Lumen Gentium, 16

God bless,

Francis

 

[fxcc]

Huh? Jesus didn’t say that? Every Bible I’ve read says that’s pretty much exactly what He did say!

What do **you **imagine Jesus said? Wait! I know! He said, “You are Peter and **on your faith **I will build my Church.” That’s what Jesus is supposed to have said, right? Or that’s what you reckon He meant, right?

So … shall we have a look at what Jesus **actually **said and from that try to conclude what He actually **meant **and did? Shall we?

Firstly, Jesus changed Simon Bar Jonah’s name to “Peter”. Actually He changed it to “kepha”. He used that word, “kepha” or “Cephas”, in Aramaic (the language in which He spoke). Now in Aramaic, the word “kepha” means rock.

So Simon got renamed “Peter” = “kepha” = “rock”, right?

Now we’ll see a bit later why this name (“rock”) which Jesus chose for Simon wasn’t just any old name, but one that was very significant. In fact, we’ll also see that the word itself gives us a powerful clue about Jesus’ intention and action! But bear with me for a moment.

Jesus’ exact words to Peter were “You are kepha (Peter) and upon this kepha (Peter) I will build my church”.

Now some people claim that by these words Jesus meant “You are Peter and **on your profession of faith in me **I will build my church”. But how could Jesus mean this when He didn’t use any word for faith, or make any reference to it, in His sentence at all?

As every serious Catholic knows, this idea - this notion that Jesus was referring to the **faith **of Peter and not to Peter himself - is just a desperate (and scripturally unprovable) interpretation, which Christians who simply don’t **want **to accept the God-given authority of the Vicar of Christ (and his infallible teachings) have devised, to try to justify their disobedience.

The **hard **fact of the matter is this: there is **no **reference **at all **in these words of Jesus, to the faith of Peter. None whatsoever! Nor is such a meaning attributable to them because of some other complementary or supplementary passage of Scripture. Rather, the **parallelism **in Jesus’ words, of **you **are rock’ and ‘on **this rock **I will build’ clearly shows that the second rock can **only **be the same one as the first (Peter). Jesus is not referring to Peter’s **faith **(or talking about any other quality or virtue of his!), Jesus is referring to **Peter himself **- Peter, to whom He has just given the wonderful name “Rock” - a word loaded with deep and powerful Biblical meaning, as we shall soon see.

Now there is a **second **parallelism in these words of Jesus, which sheds further light on them. “You are Peter,” parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ.” As if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, now I will tell you who **you **are.” And that’s exactly what Jesus does! He tells Peter: You are Peter… you are rock … indeed, the rock on which I will build my Church!

But wait, there’s more!

There is a **third **Biblical parallel to help us understand what Jesus was saying/doing when He uttered those important words. He was **paralleling **Simon Peter to Abraham! Abraham too stood at the beginning of the people of God. He too had his name changed (from Abram to Abraham, meaning “father of many nations”). That’s right! Father … papa … pope … you get the drift!!! Is this really a rational parallel - between Abraham and Peter? You decide! Abraham **too **is referred to in Scripture as … guess what? … yep, you got it! … a rock. What sort of rock? A rock from which the entire nation of Israel was hewn! That’s right! And no, it wasn’t Abraham’s **faith **that was referred to by God as rock, but Abraham himself! Read Isaiah 51:1-2. So now, in the New Testament, we find the same thing with Peter. **He **stands at the beginning of the new people of God and receives the same Hebraic description ‘rock’ to mark his leadership over God’s people of the New Covenant, notwithstanding (or indeed following from) the fact that Jesus Himself is the ultimate Rock, the Cornerstone, of His Church.

All this paralleling and stuff besides (some people don’t get these things, especially among those who rely solely on private interpretations of Scripture), Jesus puts the fact of Peter’s (and his successors’) leadership and authority over His Church **way **beyond all dispute when straight after renaming him, he promises to **Peter **- to Peter and his successors **specifically **- the keys of His Kingdom (the spiritually restored Davidic Kingdom, that is the Kingdom of God, the Church) along with the ministerial power to “bind” and “loose” in that Kingdom.

*“I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” *(Matt 16: 19)

What was the power of the keys Jesus promised to Peter? What were the keys which Jesus was referring to anyway? What comes with these keys? Have a careful read of Isaiah’s prophecy in the matter:

*“I will place the key of the **House of David ***on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open”( Is 22:22)

(continued in next post…)