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

[paul_c]

That is one interpretation, but either it is fallible or Jesus is fallible, where do you believe the fallibility lies?

Matthew 23 Jesus states the following:*** 8 "But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 "Do not call {anyone} on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.*** 10 "Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, {that is,} Christ. 11 "But the greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 "Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted. "

So who was Jesus speaking to when He stated this and whom was He speaking of and why? When you have the answer to these questions, then you will see the truth which you do not see. You will notice in the explanation given on the Catholic site, this aspect is side-stepped. Why? Perhaps they cannot reconcile the apparent contradiction.

You see some “so-named” authorities pumped themselves up with endless titles. They lack authenticity or heavenly authority. Jesus is admonishing these people about these so-named spiritual authorities and Jesus is telling His own in verses 8 and following, “Be the opposite and be humble and not puffed up in titles"

Here is how Jesus describes these types:
"They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with {so much as} a finger. 5 "But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels {of their garments.}"

Why did Jesus say this because some teachers want to be thought as the “source of spiritual knowledge”; that comes only from heaven which is Jesus point. Seems reasonalble to me that Paul wanted to be called Paul and Peter, Peter and James James, but John liked be called the “one Jesus loved”. So you see the writers set the example because they knew they were the same and even when they identifiied themselves i the intros to their letters, they called themselves messengers and/or slaves (bond-servants) of Christ, now that is humility and glorifies God in recognition as Him being the source of divine truth and authority.

Two points:

1. You are assuming that Jesus’ condemnation of the scribes and pharisees is equally applicable to the Catholic Church. This is not the case.
2. Although Jesus condemned the scribes and pharisees for being hypocrits, he also taught that they occupied the seat of Moses and their rules must be folllowed.
   it is from the very same passage of scripture that you quoted, yet you conveniently left it out. Here is the whole passage from Matthew 23:

1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples,
2 saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.
3 Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.
4 They tie up heavy burdens (hard to carry) and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them.
5 All their works are performed to be seen. They widen their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels.
6 They love places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues,
7 greetings in marketplaces, and the salutation ‘Rabbi.’
8 As for you, do not be called ‘Rabbi.’ You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers.
9 Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven.
10 Do not be called ‘Master’; you have but one master, the Messiah.
11 The greatest among you must be your servant.
12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled; but whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

You see, Jesus recognized the authority that was established by God, while you do not.
And he taught that the leaders must be the servants of all. And yes, we use the word Father to designate our priests. but they are servants of all, pledged to adminster the word of God and the sacraments while leading lives of poverty, chastity and obedience. This is not inconsistent and its biblical in that you know St. Paul called Timothy his son, when he was actually his disciple. If Timothy was his son, then St. Paul was by definition, his spiritual father. That is the usage implied.

 

[inkaneer]

So you admit the error of the past, which shows the fallibility and thus once fallibility exists in pronouncements that were suppose to be infallible - it only shows that it is from men and not from god for God is the only infallible One.

I admit to no such thing and I respectfully request that you refrain from attempting to put words in my mouth.

Peter was given the honor of opening the door to the New Covenent and that is the extent one can say without imposing on the rest of Scripture to what would be contradictory. Peter was given to the key, which is the knowledge of the gospel and it could be debated that each of the Apostles were given the key and that it was not explicit to just Peter, but will give them to Peter for the sake of argument. I think it is worth noting in Luke 11:52 about the rebuke Jesus gave to the Pharasees in light of the keys given to Peter which have the very opposite effect and shows the transition from the OT to the NT. ***“Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you yourselves did not enter, and you hindered those who were entering.” ***

Does scripture say the other Apostles were given keys? No, it doesn’t. If you entered into a debate on that point you would lose, You have to make up your mind whether you are a sola scrtipurist or not. If you are then please stick to scripture and only scripture… As for the Pharisees don’t forget what else Jesus said about them in Mt 23:1-3"

“1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do;”

Jesus recognized that the Pharisees occupired an office that had authority. The fact that Jesus called it “Moses seat” indicates that authority involved the Law of Moses. So the people were obligated to obey the Pharisees.

Jesus has both keys “And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens, says this:” Opens and shuts what? The entrance to heaven just as Peter. Just as anyone who has the authority to present the gospel, which is the Christian.

You don’t think it is a stretch to go from Peter opening up the New Covenant way of entering to the Pope? Especially since the pope wasn’t considered by your own church as the vicar of Christ until 1100 plus years after Peters death? that doesn’t strike you as strange. Isn’t strange that the early church fathers recognized the vicar of Christ as the Holy Spirit for many generations after the last Apostle died; that doesn’t seem strange to anyone? Sounds like change and fallibility to me. That is just me; the Holy Spirit guides me and you are guided by the Catholic Church for your interpretations of things pertaining to the Holy Spirit so maybe this is the diferences in opinions.

Beth Revelation 3:7 does not say what the key [singular not plural] of David is or what it opens. Once again you are adding onto scripture. That is not good for a sola scripturist. And I do not think it is a “stretch” for Peter to be Pope. In fact it is no stretch at all. What I find to be a stretch is the lengths that modern day “christians” will go to to deny what the early church. without exception, believed about Peter, his primacy among the Apostles, his authority and he being the rock on which the church was established. And you really don’t have to go beyond scripture to see how the Apostles and early disciples regarded Peter. In the 15th chapter of Acts we find the Apostles and disciples gathered together at the council of Jerusalem. What happens? Scripture says in verse 6 and 7:

“6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. 7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, …”

Peter then speaks and in verse 12 we read:

“12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.”

When Peter stood up and spoke all the debating stopped. Why? It didn’t stop before when other Apostles were speaking and debating. Why stop now for Peter? Why do students in a classroom engage in all kinds of discussion and when the teacher walks in there is silence? Because the students, like those apostles and disciplesm know who the boss is and what the boss says they want to hear. After Peter spoke there was no more debate because there was no need to. It only remained to phrase a reply which James did and send it to Antioch. Now most historians claim that this council at Jerusalem occurred in about 50 AD. So let’s fast forward in time to 80 AD, just 30 years later. Peter and most of the other Apostles are dead. John is still alive and in Ephesus. A problem arises in the church in Corinth which they, like the church in Antioch can not resolve. They need to go to a higher authority. Do they pray to God? No. Do they go to the Apostle John? No. They go to Clement. WHO is Clement??? Clement is bishop of Rome and the third in line of succession from Peter as bishop of that city. The Corinthians recognize that Clement is Peter’s successor. Remember what Jesus said about the Pharisees sitting on “Moses seat” in Mt 23:1-3? Well the Corinthians recognize Clement as now sitting on Peter’s seat. So, is it a stretch for me? No, how can it be?

 

[fxcc]

… salvation has no basis in works …

"… I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, **for she loved **much … " Luke 7:47

Jesus says it. I believe it.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Yeah, I like the part in 1 John 5:18 which says:

“18 We know that any one born of God does not sin, but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him.”

It reminds me of all those protestants who go around claiming they are sinners. Looks to me like they were not born of God.

Yes but at the time, which was the day of the resurrection the Apostles WERE the Church. They were the ones who would lay hands on [ordain] bishops [episcopoi]. They ordained deacons [diakoni]. They ordained priests [presbuteroi]. They were the ones to whom authority was given.

presbuteroi=Elders, not priests as you known them, that would be hiereus, one who offers sacrafices. See Matthew 26:3 for the useage of both in one passage so you know the truth of Scripture.

The only use of “office term” is hierateia, office of priesthood from hiereus. The body of believers, called the holy & royal “priesthood” is the word “hierateuma” (Ironically 1 Peter 2:5 & 2:9), which is an office and pertains to all Christians. The Catholic levitical-shadow priesthood does not exist in Scripture. You have elders “presbyteros”, which can be used in terms of age or as overseer. Overseer AKA: Bishop uses the term “episkopē” and the Elder, overseer and Bishop can all be interchangeably, but not hiereus or priest as you have been taught in error.{/QUOTE}

Beth: Please look up the etymology of the English word ‘priest’. Use Merriam & Websters dictionary or any dictionary that gives the etymology of words. Etymology means where they come from. There you will this:

“Etymology: Middle English preist, from Old English prēost, ultimately from Late Latin presbyter — more at presbyter”

Now if you go to presbyter to get the rest it says:

“Etymology: Late Latin, elder, priest, from Greek presbyteros, comparative of presbys old man, elder; akin to Greek pro before and Greek bainein to g”

So the greek word presbuteros is translated as elder but is transliterated as priest. A transliteration is a word in one language that is carried over into another language without any change in meaning. In the NT the greek word hiereus refers only to the Jewish priests

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Originally Posted by Beth Martin
We can forgive one another when we hurt each other and that pleases God, but the forgiveness of sins against God can only be removed by God, that was one main purpose of the cross

And this is where in scripture? It isn’t. You made it up. Here is what scripture says. First, there is only one sin that is unpardonable and that is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Everything else is forgiveable. Now when Jesus empowered the Apostles with the authority to forgive the sins of others he did not give them a list of exceptions. You made up your own list. So another example of a false gospel coming from you.

Will someone please help Inkaneer with this part; I think he or she has missed the entire purpose of Jesus ministry & our command to forgive one another and perhaps even the Lord’s Prayer…Thanks in advance

Beth

Actually Beth needs the help for her comprehension problem. Beth posted, [in her own words mind you] "…We can forgive one another when we hurt each other and that pleases God, but the forgiveness of sins against God can only be removed by God, that was one main purpose of the cross.’ I asked her to show where this is stated in scripture. It isn’t. Jesus gave authority to the APostles to forgive sin that is what is stated in scripture. There is no verse that says ‘…the forgiveness of sins against God can only be removed by God,’ You ever notice that it’s that “only” part that keeps tripping up these sola scripturists. They claim scripture only then they add onto scripture as they see fit.

 

[Beth_Martin]

God is the final judge. That is why there is a requirement of miracles before people are declared Saints. Those miracles are messages from God that the person is indeed in heaven. the church’s role is to validate that the miracles have occurred.

I wonder why the Bible, the NT writers do not distinquish saints in such a manner as this? It seems to me that saints do the worshipping, not the other way around according to the Biblicle record. I also find that there is one intercessor between God and man and it is not a saint(s). So when was this strange doctrine of “super-saints” become part of Catholicism?

 

[inkaneer]

I wonder why the Bible, the NT writers do not distinquish saints in such a manner as this? It seems to me that saints do the worshipping, not the other way around according to the Biblicle record. I also find that there is one intercessor between God and man and it is not a saint(s). So when was this strange doctrine of “super-saints” become part of Catholicism?

Super saints? No such doctrine. Just one of your false allegations. And while I am at it let’s not make the false accusation that usually follows the “Jesus is the only intercessor” routinue. No one is claiming these saints are interceding with God as does Jesus, That is a false accusation. Catholics have a larger idea of what is the Church than protestants. For if the Church is the Body of Christ then the heavenly saints are certainly part of the body of Christ and therefore part of the church. So just as a protestant can ask for a fellow churchman to pray for them, we Catholics can ask our fellow church men to pray for us. The only difference is that we have a much larger prayer circle. But there is more. Because the churchmen that protestants ask to pray for them are sinners while the churchmen Catholics ask to pray for us [heavenly saints] are totally righteous. And scripture records that the prayer of a righteous person availeth much [James 5:16 ] so our prayer circle is a more effective one also.

In protestantism once you die you are no longer in the church. In Catholicism only those damned to hell are no longer in the church.

 

[mpjw2]

MPJW:
The voices in Moses’ head were demonstrated to be of God through great miracles.
You have no such validation.

I am sorry you believe that God can not comminicate with me directly…I know I have heard from Him

Every thought you have doesn’t come from God.

I agree

I hear voices too - both good and bad. I discern which they are by whether they are aligned with Church teaching.

difference is I discern which they are by whether they are aligned with God’s and his word …the bible

Paul, I an curious, do you give the catholic church teaching authority over the written word of God?

As for the two events you discussed. Anyone can pray for someone. That does not require a priest. and anyone can tell someone how they understand God in their lives. I’ve witnessed on these pages frequently and I teach the catechism… That is also not exclusive to priests. We have lots of lay missionaries in the Catholic Church. But they must teach what the Church teaches, not just anything that pops into their heads

. And they are under the jurisdiction of the local bishop, who has the teaching authority of the Church.

Thats great. but here you referenced the church again

Paul, I do not teach what pops in my head either. I taught Sunday school 3rd and 4th graders.

I taught the kids right out of the bible. I taught them what God teaches in His word.

Priests are consecrated to to administer the sacraments in the place of Jesus. You are not authorized to do that.

I fully agree with you that I am not authorized if I was catholic…

Since I am not catholic …I have ministered communion, I have prayed a confession prayer …reconciliation with people, many of time

Hence one of the reasons I am not catholic. Being catholic would limit me to what I can do and can not do.

God does not place limits on anyone as to what they can do

for God’s word says

we can do all things through Christ who strengthens us…Phil 4:13

If you claim the right on your own, it is meaningless and without validity

absolutely …I agree

however I do not do anything unless I am guided by the Holy Spirit which makes what I do valid in God’s eyes

It is not about me it is about what God does through me:thumbsup:

 

[mpjw2]

Paul I am sorry for the long reply yesterday…I kept typing as words came to me answering your questions

I have come to a conclusion after all our discussion with you and others and reading other threads on this site,

See if you agree or not

when it cames to salvation…

Catholics believe they are saved, as Des posted, at the precise moment after a sincere confession of any mortal sin committed or unconfessed sin. There soul for that moment only would be restored to a state of grace and they would enter heaven** if they would die **right at that moment only.

It is not a common practice for catholic to declare salvation because being in a state of grace is temporary until sin enters one’s life again.

do I have it basically correct?

as far as non catholic christians…

If one were to declare they are saved…a red flag will rise…OSAS.( a protestant belief)

Paul, I believe in my heart that non catholic christians take confession as serious as you do.

You do not believe in OSAS

Are there christians who do? … absolutely.

there are Christians who take being saved the wrong way with the OSAS attitude…

Something to the effect…they prayed a sinners prayer 20 years ago so now they are saved for the rest of their life…and they can live and sin any way they want and do not have to worry about their destination because they are saved

no wonder non catholic Christians have a bad reputation…there are too many people who call themselve Christian who have this attitude about christianity and salvation

Do all non catholic christians believe in OSAS? … absolutely not

Paul you did not make a comment on my reference to OSAS in my last post so here it is again…

Look at what Des said in a previous post which has nothing to do with OSAS .

I can say for certain that a Catholic is saved after Confessing his sins to a Priest.

granted Non catholic christians do not confess to a priest, but for the same reason you confess we confess too.

In addition to confessing to God we may also confide in a spouse, loyal friend, counselor …someone we can trust to hold us accountable.

I am assumming…and only God knows… as my friend was being stabbed to death, He made one last sincere confession in heart and by doing so God would have saved Him. just as he would save you at only that precise moment in time …

such confession has nothing to do with OSAS

I encourage you not to believe the baptist Church teaches OSAS similiar to the way I just quoted myself above

I have been associated with baptists and I can promise you that the baptist religion does not teach OSAS.

they need to confess their sin just as much as you need to confess yours,

If you encounter a baptist who has a OSAS attitude…pray for him, teach him, but please do not assume all are like him and share similiar beliefs.

Within any christian church there are “baby” immature christians…myself included.

I was a baby christian at the ripe age of 42 where I started to learn a new world of christianity. I probably did a lot of things wrong and sent mixed signals without intending to do so

You claim to be here to seek unity with Catholics.

Unity in the way…

we can accept each other independant of what the other believes

we do not have to accept the belief of the other

yes our believes have common threads but they are also apart in lot of areas

the main thing is …we christians all say Jesus is the center of our life

As long as we are focused on Jesus, we win.

you agree?

 

[mpjw2]

Here is a story I am sure you will all be blessed by…

She jumped up as soon as she saw the surgeon come out of the operating room.
She said: ‘How is my little boy?
Is he going to be all right?
When can I see him?’
The surgeon said, ‘I’m sorry. We did all we could, but your boy didn’t make it.’

Sally said, ‘Why do little children get cancer?
Doesn’t God care any more? Where were you, God, when my son needed you?’

The surgeon asked, ‘Would you like some time alone with your son?
One of the nurses will be out in a few minutes, before he’s transported to the university.’
Sally asked the nurse to stay with her while she said good bye to son…
She ran her fingers lovingly through his thick red curly hair.

‘Would you like a lock of his hair?’
the nurse asked.

Sally nodded yes.

The nurse cut a lock of the boy’s hair, put it in a plastic bag
and handed it to Sally.

The mother said, 'It was Jimmy’s idea to donate his body to the University for Study.
He said it might help somebody else. 'I said no at first,

but Jimmy said,
‘Mom, I won’t be using it after I die.
Maybe it will help some other little boy spend one more day with his Mom.’

She went on, ‘My Jimmy had a heart of gold. Always thinking of someone else.
Always wanting to help others if he could.’

Sally walked out of Children’s Mercy Hospital for the last time,
after spending most of the last six months there… She put the bag with Jimmy’s belongings on the seat beside her in the car…
The drive home was difficult. It was even harder to enter the empty house… She carried Jimmy’s belongings, and the plastic bag with the lock of his hair to her son’s room.
She started placing the model cars and other personal things back in his room exactly where he had always kept them. She lay down across his bed and, hugging his pillow, cried herself to sleep.
It was around midnight when Sally awoke. Lying beside her on the bed was a folded letter. The letter said

'Dear Mom,

I know you’re going to miss me; but don’t think that I will ever forget you, or stop loving you, just 'cause I’m not around to say ‘I Love You’. I will always love you, Mom, even more with each day.
Someday we will see each other again. Until then, if you want to adopt a little boy so you won’t be so lonely, that’s okay with me…

He can have my room and old stuff to play with. But, if you decide to get a girl instead,
she probably wouldn’t like the same things us boys do. You’ll have to buy her dolls and stuff girls like, you know.

Don’t be sad thinking about me. This really is a neat place. Grandma and Grandpa met me as soon as I got here and showed me around some, but it will take a long time to see everything

The angels are so cool.
I love to watch them fly.

And, you know what? Jesus doesn’t look like any of his pictures…
Yet, when I saw Him, I knew it was Him. Jesus himself took me to see GOD! And guess what, Mom?

I got to sit on God’s knee and talk to Him, like I was somebody important. That’s when I told Him that I wanted to write you a letter, to tell you good bye and everything.

But I already knew that wasn’t allowed…
Well, you know what Mom? God handed me some paper and His own personal pen to write you this letter I think Gabriel is the name of the angel who is going to drop this letter off to you. God said for me to give you the answer to one of the questions you asked Him where was He when I needed him?’

'God said He was in the same place with me, as when His son Jesus was on the cross. He was right there, as He always is with all His children.

Oh, by the way, Mom, no one else can see what I’ve written except you. To everyone else this is just a blank piece of paper. Isn’t that cool? I have to give God His pen back now He needs it to write some more names in the Book of Life.

Tonight I get to sit at the table with Jesus for supper… I’m sure the food will be great.

Oh, I almost forgot to tell you. I don’t hurt anymore the cancer is all gone…
I’m glad because I couldn’t stand that pain anymore and God couldn’t stand to see me hurt so much, either.
That’s when He sent The Angel of Mercy to come get me. The Angel said I was a Special Delivery! How about that?

Signed with Love from God, Jesus & Me.

God saves all his children who believe young and old

And God speaks to us all in mysterious ways

God bless you all

mpjw

 

[Beth_Martin]

The authority of the Church is prior to the authority of scripture and it is sufficient. It was the Church that validated the books of the New Testament. They were written by members of the Church,and obviously the authors thought that Jesus and the apostles performed real miracles.

Same circular reasoning that Abu espoused. The Church has it authority based on Scripture and gives itself the authority to determine the authority (the Scripture) to interpret. there is but one universal and holy authority and is came down from heaven and it isn’t the Church.

 

[Beth_Martin]

How do you know? Thought the Holy spirit would not let you be wrong if you were a believer.

Scripture validates itself, part of what makes it living and able to make the claim for itself to be of God. So when you believe you have grasped a concept and in your reading you come across something that appears to contradict you now know you have made an error and must discover through study, which the Holy Spirit will lead those who are diligent to the understanding. then there are things that the human mind is incapable of understanding which is expected since the Scriptures are the mind of God, which is far superior to ours.

 

[Beth_Martin]

Stop. you are quoting Romans selectively. Sure you need Faith but you also need works:

Here’s Romans 2:
5 By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God,
6 who will repay everyone according to his works:
7 eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works,
8 but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness.
9 Yes, affliction and distress will come upon every human being who does evil, Jew first and then Greek.
10 But there will be glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good, Jew first and then Greek

Tell that to the theif on the cross; He must be i hell even though Jesus said otherwise and he really must be in hell since he didn’t have time to be water baptized. Works are the fruit of genuine faith, not the agency of faith. Works are important, but not in the sense you put them in; that would be considered wages for the works of the Sacraments; you do much preperation and perform them and in return you expect to receive something, which nullifies grace, which is a gift and is counted as wages, the very point Paul makes in Scripture.

 

[Beth_Martin]

It’s called a conscience Beth. To ignore it is to ignore this great gift from God because a weak conscience results in poor spiritual growth.

And Paul agrees.

Act 24:16 "And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void to offence toward God, and toward men."

Not likely. Confession is a very humble experience and that’s one of the reasons why it was instituted. Ironically however, what you said to me, is exactly how I feel the toward you. How easy and simple it must be to confess in private to God. So easy in fact that it dangerously can become routine and boring. Even easier when you believe in OSAS. And it seems clear that because you don’t often think about your sins or keeping your conscience clean, that you could make a good example of this type of behaviour. You see Beth, the problem with this world nowadays is the lack of a sense of sin people seem to have. And if one isn’t always examining his conscience or being alert, then it’s so easy to fall into this trap.

Mark 13:33 "Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come."

I have the fullness of the Truth in my Church Beth. Never feel sorry for that. Feel sorry for yourself and how you can’t ever really know if you’re right or not, since you really are your own guide to what God is saying in His Written Word.

Why certainly. However my misinterpretations can’t ever lead me astray from the Dogmas of the Church so long as I at least remain within those confines while interpreting. You however can believe one doctrine of yours from your interpretations, then totally do a 180 once you ‘feel’ you were wrong the first time God ‘showed you the light’. Meanwhile all along you’ve been preaching and teaching the wrong truths. And if you messed up once, you can do it again…and again…and again. And if you thought the Holy Spirit lead you once into an interpretation (but obviously He did not since you’ve since felt it was wrongly interpreted later down the road), then you really have to constantly question everything you read now along with your current doctrines you cling to.

You’ve clearly misunderstood them mpjw. Because honestly, I’ve only ever heard Catholics say they are unsure of their Salvation (future tense) and not present tense so long as they had just received the Sacrament of Confession.

What you do not see is that sin is dealt one on one with God and not by the externals through a person who is not capable of interceeding; it my feel humbling, but feelings do not change the the way God has commanded we confess our sins has it? Yes we are to confess to one another when we do harm to one another, but at the same time we did harm to one another we also sinned against God as well; therefore we confess to one another and also to God in private. Doing the external action makes you “feel good” and “relieved” and “safe” because "you did something and someone told you it could be forgiven or is forgiven, but by one without authority from god to do so, for even the Jews knew as they stated that God alone can forgive sins.

The undestanding of sin is so important that by understanding it you understand others and their behaviors and you have more compassion, you understand yourself better, not in a good way, but you also love God all the more because the more you understand sin and its compunding effects on everything the more you understand the love and grace of God; so never tell me I have no understanding or take sin lightly.

 

[Beth_Martin]

Beth, you ignore what you do not like. You, like Martin Luther before you, judge yourself a sinner and therefore seek out a theology where sin doesn’t matter. Well, it does matter. Every sin is a breaking from God’s will (that is the definition of sin, afterall).

We are all called to be holy. Not to claiim that Jesus’s sacrifice nullified our sins so that they don’t matter, , but to actually become holy. Nothing that isn’t holy will enter heaven. I’m sure you can find that statement in scripture.

Now, sure, everyone sins. But that is no excuse. When we sin, we must reconcile with God sacramentally, repent, and do our best to avoid sinning in the future. Through this process and God’s sacramental grace, we will learn to align our will to God’s, reduce our incidence of sin and become increasingly holy. That is what we are called to do. And the saints amoung us reach a point of holiness where they rarely sin at all and never commit mortal sin. Is it so hard to believe that people are capable of living their lives without killing, lying, stealing or cheating on their spouses, while showing love of God and Neighbor,

Saying that everyone does it (sin) is no excuse. You wouldn’t accept it from your kids and God doesn’t accept it from us either.

And saying that Jesus died to make our sins null and void is a complete misunderstanding of what the Gospel message is. His suffering was not to allow us to sin without consequence. His suffering was to show us the evil of sin and to teach us about love. And yes, his suffering allowed us to be reconciled to God so that we could gain the sacramental grace that will ultimately save us if we cooperate with it. But there’s the rub, we must cooperate with that grace. We must follow Jesus and act with love.

It is your lack of understanding sin that is the root of your problem; you see as an external act of pennance whereas sin is the most important thing to understand in its fullest depths because it allows you to understand the behavior of others and have compassion on them and it helps you understand yourself as God sees you and with that it allows you to love God and appreciate him in ways that are not possible without a very deep understanding of the nature and character and impact of sin; it increases the appreciation of Gods love and kindness and aloows one to be more compassionate toward others; somethign an external confession and act of pennance which only satisfies and pacifies the “self”; i feel better now that i am right with God. It is about self and not about others. Never tell me i do not have an uderstanding of sin; it is so important to grasp and something i work daily with concerning my children so they will be prepared to accept His grace and have compassion on others.

 

[fxcc]

Same circular reasoning that Abu espoused. The Church has it authority based on Scripture and gives itself the authority to determine the authority (the Scripture) to interpret. there is but one universal and holy authority and is came down from heaven and it isn’t the Church.

More garbage. It just flows and flows and flows!!!

Where does the Church (the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church) derive her authority? Take your pick. Help yourself. Pleasure’s all mine!

“… I will build my church… and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it …” (Matt 16:18)

“Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations … teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I** am with you always**, until the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:19-20)

"…as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. " (John 20:21)

“He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.” (Luke 10:16)

… every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn." (Isaiah 54:17)

“And Christ gave some apostles, and others pastors and doctors, that henceforth we be no more children tossed to-and-fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine” (Eph. 4:11-14)

“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!” (Gal 1:8) "

“If he will not hear **the **Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican.”[Matt. xviii. 17.]

“Whosoever will not receive you, nor hear your words, going forth from that house or city, shake the dust from your feet. Amen, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment that for that city.”[Matt. x. 14, 15.]

“… mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them…" (Rom 16:17)

“They went out from us, but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us.” (1 John 2:19)

 

[Beth_Martin]

Two points:

1. You are assuming that Jesus’ condemnation of the scribes and pharisees is equally applicable to the Catholic Church. This is not the case.
2. Although Jesus condemned the scribes and pharisees for being hypocrits, he also taught that they occupied the seat of Moses and their rules must be folllowed.
   it is from the very same passage of scripture that you quoted, yet you conveniently left it out. Here is the whole passage from Matthew 23:

1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples,
2 saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.
3 Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.
4 They tie up heavy burdens (hard to carry) and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them.
5 All their works are performed to be seen. They widen their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels.
6 They love places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues,
7 greetings in marketplaces, and the salutation ‘Rabbi.’
8 As for you, do not be called ‘Rabbi.’ You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers.
9 Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven.
10 Do not be called ‘Master’; you have but one master, the Messiah.
11 The greatest among you must be your servant.
12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled; but whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

You see, Jesus recognized the authority that was established by God, while you do not.
And he taught that the leaders must be the servants of all. And yes, we use the word Father to designate our priests. but they are servants of all, pledged to adminster the word of God and the sacraments while leading lives of poverty, chastity and obedience. This is not inconsistent and its biblical in that you know St. Paul called Timothy his son, when he was actually his disciple. If Timothy was his son, then St. Paul was by definition, his spiritual father. That is the usage implied.

You miss the entire point; see verse 8 " "But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers.– Jesus point is two fold 1) we, the saints are all the same but with different gifts, but all the same in his sight and 2) there is only one true Spiritual Teacher. Why do you refer to the Pope as “Holy Father”? It is a title to give honor to what Jesus says is just another brother, do you see the point Jesus is making?

 

[Beth_Martin]

I admit to no such thing and I respectfully request that you refrain from attempting to put words in my mouth.

Does scripture say the other Apostles were given keys? No, it doesn’t. If you entered into a debate on that point you would lose, You have to make up your mind whether you are a sola scrtipurist or not. If you are then please stick to scripture and only scripture… As for the Pharisees don’t forget what else Jesus said about them in Mt 23:1-3"

“1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do;”

Jesus recognized that the Pharisees occupired an office that had authority. The fact that Jesus called it “Moses seat” indicates that authority involved the Law of Moses. So the people were obligated to obey the Pharisees.

Beth Revelation 3:7 does not say what the key [singular not plural] of David is or what it opens. Once again you are adding onto scripture. That is not good for a sola scripturist. And I do not think it is a “stretch” for Peter to be Pope. In fact it is no stretch at all. What I find to be a stretch is the lengths that modern day “christians” will go to to deny what the early church. without exception, believed about Peter, his primacy among the Apostles, his authority and he being the rock on which the church was established. And you really don’t have to go beyond scripture to see how the Apostles and early disciples regarded Peter. In the 15th chapter of Acts we find the Apostles and disciples gathered together at the council of Jerusalem. What happens? Scripture says in verse 6 and 7:

“6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. 7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, …”

Peter then speaks and in verse 12 we read:

“12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.”

When Peter stood up and spoke all the debating stopped. Why? It didn’t stop before when other Apostles were speaking and debating. Why stop now for Peter? Why do students in a classroom engage in all kinds of discussion and when the teacher walks in there is silence? Because the students, like those apostles and disciplesm know who the boss is and what the boss says they want to hear. After Peter spoke there was no more debate because there was no need to. It only remained to phrase a reply which James did and send it to Antioch. Now most historians claim that this council at Jerusalem occurred in about 50 AD. So let’s fast forward in time to 80 AD, just 30 years later. Peter and most of the other Apostles are dead. John is still alive and in Ephesus. A problem arises in the church in Corinth which they, like the church in Antioch can not resolve. They need to go to a higher authority. Do they pray to God? No. Do they go to the Apostle John? No. They go to Clement. WHO is Clement??? Clement is bishop of Rome and the third in line of succession from Peter as bishop of that city. The Corinthians recognize that Clement is Peter’s successor. Remember what Jesus said about the Pharisees sitting on “Moses seat” in Mt 23:1-3? Well the Corinthians recognize Clement as now sitting on Peter’s seat. So, is it a stretch for me? No, how can it be?

Look at the greek for the word key; it is always sigular and even in the passage where it says keys; the word means “a key” sigular, so perhaps Jesus gave 12 keys to peter to distribute to each of the others and one for himself; certainly cannot jump from the seat of Moses to the seat of Peter and jump even further with sucession at least from the words of Scripture, which the only way that could happen would be from an infalliable authority unto itself that makes to claim to know what God meant by what He said and dismiss the early church fathers understanding of the vicar of Christ being the Holy Spirit, but 1100 plus years later a man claimed the title for himself before men but not before God.

That is your faith mine is in Jesus and the written word authored by the holy Spirit and followed by the prophets, the writers and the apostles from a chuch that started on the day of pentecost and is still being built on the foundation, which is also the builder according to Scripture and that foundation and builder is Jesus Christ.

 

[fxcc]

What you do not see is that sin is dealt one on one with God and not by the externals through a person who is not capable of interceeding; it my feel humbling, but feelings do not change the the way God has commanded we confess our sins has it? Yes we are to confess to one another when we do harm to one another, but at the same time we did harm to one another we also sinned against God as well; therefore we confess to one another and also to God in private. Doing the external action makes you “feel good” and “relieved” and “safe” because "you did something and someone told you it could be forgiven or is forgiven, but by one without authority from god to do so, for even the Jews knew as they stated that God alone can forgive sins.

“Whatever **you **shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, whatever **you **shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
or
“Whose sins **you **forgive they are forgiven, whose sins **you **retain they are retained.”

Which part of “you” don’t you understand?

How come people who have difficulty understanding even the plainest English qualify as teachers and preachers?

 

[Beth_Martin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Yeah, I like the part in 1 John 5:18 which says:

“18 We know that any one born of God does not sin, but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him.”

It reminds me of all those protestants who go around claiming they are sinners. Looks to me like they were not born of God.

Yes but at the time, which was the day of the resurrection the Apostles WERE the Church. They were the ones who would lay hands on [ordain] bishops [episcopoi]. They ordained deacons [diakoni]. They ordained priests [presbuteroi]. They were the ones to whom authority was given.

Actually Beth needs the help for her comprehension problem. Beth posted, [in her own words mind you] "…We can forgive one another when we hurt each other and that pleases God, but the forgiveness of sins against God can only be removed by God, that was one main purpose of the cross.’ I asked her to show where this is stated in scripture. It isn’t. Jesus gave authority to the APostles to forgive sin that is what is stated in scripture. There is no verse that says ‘…the forgiveness of sins against God can only be removed by God,’ You ever notice that it’s that “only” part that keeps tripping up these sola scripturists. They claim scripture only then they add onto scripture as they see fit.

I did not want to make you look foolish, but now you leave me with no choice as your ignorance of the cross is manifested.

“But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”–then He *said to the paralytic, “Get up, pick up your bed and go home.”

***“Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?” ***

***The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, “Who is this {man} who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?” ***- Luke 5 The devout religious leaders sure knew who had the authority. They are the very ones who came up and understood the “loosing and binding” of sins; yet they recognize that god alone can forgive sins? Why? Because as i keep repeatig it is not the messenger, but the message that is the basis for the forgiveness or not to forgive. Do you accept the gospel or not? that is what determines if God forgives or not…basic 101 in Scripture and common sense 101 in human reasoning. This is why Matthew 18:18 was told the same to a crowd of disciples and why the great commission appies to all Christians it is the message, not the person delivering it. Peter and the apostles had the mighty privlidge and responsibility given and chosen as instuments of God to be the first to deliver the “Good News”, the gospel of our salvation.

'Father, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. 3 'Give us each day our daily bread. 4 ‘And forgive us our sins, For we ourselves also forgive everyone who is R616 indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation.’ --Luke 11

9 "Pray, then, in this way: 'Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. 10 'Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven. 11 'Give us this day our daily bread. 12 ’And forgive us our debts,----Matthew 6

God alone can forgive sins and Jesus died on the cross to make that possible and it is the reason for God giving man the Scriptures so we can know and have that salvation through Jesus. :banghead:

 

[Beth_Martin]

Super saints? No such doctrine. Just one of your false allegations. And while I am at it let’s not make the false accusation that usually follows the “Jesus is the only intercessor” routinue. No one is claiming these saints are interceding with God as does Jesus, That is a false accusation. Catholics have a larger idea of what is the Church than protestants. For if the Church is the Body of Christ then the heavenly saints are certainly part of the body of Christ and therefore part of the church. So just as a protestant can ask for a fellow churchman to pray for them, we Catholics can ask our fellow church men to pray for us. The only difference is that we have a much larger prayer circle. But there is more. Because the churchmen that protestants ask to pray for them are sinners while the churchmen Catholics ask to pray for us [heavenly saints] are totally righteous. And scripture records that the prayer of a righteous person availeth much [James 5:16 ] so our prayer circle is a more effective one also.

In protestantism once you die you are no longer in the church. In Catholicism only those damned to hell are no longer in the church.

As I said there is but one intercessor, asking someone to pray is not the same as the Catholic concept where you are indeed asking the saints to interceed on your behalf whereas i ask my husband to pray to God. The Catholic encylcopedia can give you the correct teaching of your church on this issue.