# Was Jesus deliberately ambiguous? #

[Socrates4Jesus]

I haven’t dialogued with Mormons but If you think that you’d arrive at the concept of the Trinity on your own or even that the divinity of Jesus can’t be argued plausibly either way, going by scripture alone, then I think you need to read more objectively.

Wow! Lots of insightful comments. Thank you, FL! I’ll try to respond to each. (BTW, i find it interesting that forum communication differs from all other in that the participants can more easily multitask. If Socrates were alive today, i’m sure he’s spend a good deal of his time in forums like these. Although, with his brilliant mind, i’m sure he’d have the skill and speed of thought to hold his own in a chat room, as well.)

http://www.moviesmackdown.com/images/2008/08/11/cast_away.jpg

I think that i most definitely would arrive at the concept of the Trinity were i on a deserted island with nothing but a volley ball and the Bible to keep me company. I’ve read the Bible cover-to-cover several times, and am amazed at how five premises are so strongly supported:1. There is only one God

1. The Father is God
2. The Holy Spirit is God
3. The Son of God is God
4. The Father is not the Son of God nor the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father nor the Son of God, and the Son of God is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit.Given these five premises, which are all clearly supported by Sacred Scripture, i can see no other conclusion to draw but that God is one God in three persons.

Now, when i was rescued from that island, i’m sure i would not call this inference i’d discovered Trinity, but i’d believe in the concept, just the same.

However, do you think i’m wrong? Is so, please tell me either (a) how the five premises lead to a different conclusion rather than the Trinity, or (b) how any one of the five premises is not clearly supported by Sacred Scripture.

Yes, well then everyone must agree on its meaning. But somehow I’ve missed that.

For starters, the Trinity is one on which they have good scriptureal reasons to agree.

Exactly. If you read Matt 23:1-3 you’ll find the principle that teachings (faith and morals) can be correct while the teachers themselves are hypocrites. IOW, this hypocrisy, itself, constitutes no reason for leaving the Church or doubting her doctrine.

In one sense i agree that a person of questionable character might speak the truth. To claim that one is not speaking the truth merely because his character is questionable is to commit the fallacy of making an ad hominem attack. However, i think that a person of questionable character is more likely to be deceived and, therefore, have his ability to know (much less speak) the truth impared. Don’t you?

For example, i saw a news segment where a self-esteem test was given to convicts in a maximum security prison. These convicts rated themselves extremely high in character, higher than the general population outside of prison! These convicts were deceived, i think, into thinking they were pretty good guys. They would be more likely to deceive others into thinking that crime is an acceptable way of life for a pretty good guy.

The same might be true of some in the Catholic Church who find sexual intercorse with children a tollerable sin, and allow those who commit such evil to remain in positions of spiritual leadership.

But if you think i’m wrong, then please explain what Jesus’ words mean:By their fruit you will recognize them.

(Matthew 7)

Yes, well, Jimmy Swaggart still has a church of some kind.

No; Jimmy Swaggart considered returning to ministry, but his Evangelical friends advised him against it. He heeded their advice.

And that’s the point. Any maverick, whether a pastor, a sede vacantist priest, or John Doe, who gets in trouble with his church or doesn’t agree with some doctrine or practice, can just go start another church-so we end up with more disunity and division.

True. Those who are not discerning and spend little time discussing Sacred Scripture, like you and i, are more likely to be deceived into following someone whose fruit shows them to be an imposter, rather than a genuine follower of Christ. Jim Jones comes to mind. Joseph Smith also comes to mind.

Counseling is one thing- Catholic pastors do this as well. Confession is viewed with wide diversity within Protestantism, if considered at all. In any case, this has to do with theological differences, the early church agreeing with the modern CC view; post-baptismal sins need to be dealt with throughout life because of the Catholic doctrine on justification.

Perhaps you are correct.

 

[paul_c]

Yes, i see what you are saying, now, but let me be sure: If you had to define the gospel, would you say that the gospel is that (1) one should recognize and submit to the authority of the Catholic Church, and (2) one should trust in the efficacy of the Sacraments to save one from hell?

Well I would have used different words.

1. you should recognize and follow the Church’s teaching, because it is the truth handed down from the Apostles
2. You should lead a sacramental life, partaking of the sacraments and living a life of love to the best of your ability, doing God’s will and staying in the state of Grace.

I beleive that most Christians would recognize the need to do Gods will, loving God and neighbor, but most non-Catholic Christians don’t recognize the sacraments role in salvation because they lose that (except the orthodox) when separating from Rome.

 

[paul_c]

Socrates,
you said:

The same might be true of some in the Catholic Church who find sexual intercorse with children a tollerable sin, and allow those who commit such evil to remain in positions of spiritual leadership

Let me assure you that no one in the Catholic Church thinks pediophilia is a tolerable sin. It was a huge scandal to all involved and caused many to lose faith… Those bishops that reassigned priests to other parishes in most cases felt (incorrectly in most cases) that changing the environment would eliminate the problem. Very strong corrective action has been taken to insure this never happens again. to learn about it, click here: usccb.org/ocyp/websafe.shtml

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Yes, I understand, and this is a crucial difference because it involves salvation. Most protestants actually believe that justification and sanctification are separate whereas Catholics beleive they are intimately connected. In practice, I think many Protestants actually do things more in line with the Catholic teaching because its intuitive, for one thing. There’s nothing wrong with moral responsibility with reward or punishment as the outcome- even this world works that way -and, after all, God’s the boss and expects us to consciously follow an objective morality as He sets forth. The difference is that Catholics believe that God’s grace will help us to completely fulfill His commandments, epitomized by Love, rather than simply grant us the right to heaven through an escape clause which means we don’t really have to be righteous. In Catholicism we’re forgiven for our sins and then must go, and sin no more.

Agreed. But unlike you i find a genuine love in such obedience on the part of some Evangelicals. For example, where a Jehovah’s Witness believes her good works have everything to do with her getting to heaven, an Evangelical believes her good works have nothing to do with getting into heaven. When asked why she does good works at all, the Evangelical will likely say it is because she has a great love for the Holy Spirit, and gratitude for what Jesus suffered for her, and an intense desire to please the Father. I find such sincerety–no thought of getting heaven in return for doing good–refreshing.

Yes, and I believe this is a grave error. God’s whole purpose from the beginning was not to give man some whimsical or arbitrary laws he could never live up to and then save him anyway, but rather to draw man to complete, willful obedience.

And this is the point, “sola scripturalists” disagree.

But what do you think God desires from you or i more–completely voluntary obedience? or completely voluntary love? I think that it is possible to obey God, but not love Him. But it is impossible to love Him, without obeying Him. What do you think?

 

[paul_c]

Agreed. But unlike you i find a genuine love in such obedience on the part of some Evangelicals. For example, where a Jehovah’s Witness believes her good works have everything to do with her getting to heaven, an Evangelical believes her good works have nothing to do with getting into heaven. When asked why she does good works at all, the Evangelical will likely say it is because she has a great love for the Holy Spirit, and gratitude for what Jesus suffered for her, and an intense desire to please the Father. I find such sincerety–no thought of getting heaven in return for doing good–refreshing.

But what do you think God desires from you or i more–completely voluntary obedience? or completely voluntary love? I think that it is possible to obey God, but not love Him. But it is impossible to love Him, without obeying Him. What do you think?

As we have discussed several times in the last few days. The difference in understanding works vs faith alone is mostly in language, not in content. Virtually all Christians believe that you need to do good works to live out your faith. Whether this is to simply demonstrate your faith, whether its purely for love of God, or whether it is described as completing your faith, is all in the description. the actions are the same.

There are very few Christians that actually beleive that you can Sin Boldly (as Martin Luther described it) and still claim to have salvation through faith alone.

 

[fhansen]

However, do you think i’m wrong? Is so, please tell me either (a) how the five premises lead to a different conclusion rather than the Trinity, or (b) how any one of the five premises is not clearly supported by Sacred Scripture.

I honestly don’t think you’d even get started. After reading a few pages you’d say, 'Where in the #### did these guys get this stuff and go play volleyball. I don’t think the concepts would even exist on the palette of ideas available for human consideration today if not for the revelation of Christ at the beginning and then the hammering out and carrying and spreading of these doctrines down through the centuries.

For starters, the Trinity is one on which they have good scriptureal reasons to agree.

Many who read scripture disagree and I believe the great majority are as sincere as anyone else. Arianism, for one, ruled the day for a long time early on. JWs and Unitarians, to name a couple, carry on the tradition.

In one sense i agree that a person of questionable character might speak the truth. To claim that one is not speaking the truth merely because his character is questionable is to commit the fallacy of making an ad hominem attack. However, i think that a person of questionable character is more likely to be deceived and, therefore, have his ability to know (much less speak) the truth impared. Don’t you?

If we have to depend on the character of humans to ensure the veracity of the message, corruption would be guaranteed. And with the CC, error is precluded at the level of the Magisterium, not at the level of the local priest or Catholic neighbor. We need insurance that the “deposit of faith” is kept safely guarded and locatable somewhere.

The same might be true of some in the Catholic Church who find sexual intercorse with children a tollerable sin, and allow those who commit such evil to remain in positions of spiritual leadership.

But if you think i’m wrong, then please explain what Jesus’ words mean:

By their fruit you will recognize them.
​

By a pedophile’s fruit I’d say we certainly know he’s not on the road to salvation, at that time anyway.

No; Jimmy Swaggart considered returning to ministry, but his Evangelical friends advised him against it. He heeded their advice.

Well, that was nice of him. The truth is he carried on as a pastor for several years after the scandal and he’d still be there now if the truth hadn’t been found out. In any case it would’ve been better if he’d left sooner as he only served to spread lies anyway but the truth is that all of this behavior, whether from Protestants or Catholics serve to taint the Christian message.​

 

[fhansen]

But what do you think God desires from you or i more–completely voluntary obedience? or completely voluntary love? I think that it is possible to obey God, but not love Him. But it is impossible to love Him, without obeying Him. What do you think?

I think St Basil put it well:
If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the position of children.

 

[fhansen]

Yes, i see what you are saying, now, but let me be sure: If you had to define the gospel, would you say that the gospel is that (1) one should recognize and submit to the authority of the Catholic Church, and (2) one should trust in the efficacy of the Sacraments to save one from hell?

I’d add to paul c’s comments on this with some general thoughts. While the CC is important to us and to the heart of God, her purpose is quite utilitarian in some respects. She is simply to proclaim the good news to the world-correctly-and help us along the way, with the Sacraments and other means, to the goal of which the good news speaks-reconciliation of man with God.

 

[pneuma07]

P7:

Yes, what you say sounds reasonable. Jesus was clearly speaking only to Peter.



Would you say, then, that only Peter had the power to bind and loose? For Jesus was clearly speaking only to him in Matthew, chapter 16.

Dear Soc,

    we have to go to the other of the two pericopes where the Lord speaks about the Church.  ( both cases  deal with  authority, BTW)

16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

18Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

19Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
20For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
21Then came Peter to him …

In paragraph 553 of the CCC we read.

*553 Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."287 The “power of the keys” designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: "Feed my sheep."288
The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles289 and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom. *

I understand you at this point accept as true the first part of the paragraph 553.

If it is also agreed that there are essentially and approximately two dimensions in the “binding and loosing”, ie remission of sins and regulatory power, we have IMHO to distinguish between them to answer your question.

We see BTW the Apostles receiving explicitly the first power in John 20.
It makes sense IMHO that this power be possessed by Jesus’ minister as single person. You cannot expect to call a Council any time you have to Reconcile a single sinner.

On the other hand, it does not make so much sense thinking of many sources of regulatory power. Even if like-minded.
In a modern Parliament, eg, senators and congress(wo)men have legislative power collectively, we don’t see hundreds of legislative organs there.

So I’d say that binding and loosing, in its regulatory dimension, should be understood as a unitary collective power.

You clearly see, moreover, that verse 18 becomes plural ( ye shall bind) , even if immediately preceded by “let him be unto thee…”.
And followed by “two of you”…
Now, it could be expected that a delivery of powers to single apostles ( I’m not sure we have to believe there were only the apostles there) would be expressed, in such a context, with a simple “Whatsoever any of you…”…

You may note, OTOH, that in 16:19 the “binding and loosing” is conferred unequivocally to the person of Peter. Just as the keys are.
So that we cannot doubt Peter is a personal organ of whatever power is implied in the “binding and loosing”.

I hope this answer makes sense.

PS And what do we see implemented in the Church ?
Precisely that both Peter’s successor and sign of the unity of the Church as such and the college of the successors of the Apostles in communion with him, are the two twin sources of the doctrinal position and of the disciplines.

In Christ
P7

 

[silencethelamb]

Was Jesus deliberately ambiguous?

Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter,
But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.

Proverbs 8:10 “ The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom,
And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

Proverbs 3:26 For the LORD will be your confidence,
And will keep your foot from being caught.

 

[Pax]

Then why do you quote your church fathers as thou they are the word of God.
Why can only the pope speak without error, and all catholics say amen?
Why is it only catholic clergy can properly interpret scripture?

To me, and the statements I have read signifies your belief and suports my statement, that you deny is true.
Let me ask you this can anyone else speak for or represent God outside the CC?
If your answer is yes then you dont believe as many other catholics do, and I stand corrected in your opinion of your church.
If you answer no then you are in denial about your own churches official statements and my statement is true.

It all nice and cozy in this tread and every attempt is made to show just how similar catholics are to evangelicals. You step outside this thread and start reading other post and you soon come face to face with the right wing catholics that believe my statement is true and will be glad to tell you so. You have just provided the evidence that I previously stated, that catholics are all over the board about what they believe also. That phrase catholics so commonly use that implies that protestants are not in agreement about every detail of scripture is true, and the same goes for catholic agreement about the CATECHISM.

"Ecumenical should not mean a silence about particular truths for fear of being out of step with other people. What is true must be spoken openly, without dissimulation. Perfect truth is an aspect of perfect love. Ecumenical should mean to support the inner wholeness of faith, and thus make the separated brother aware that everything truly Christian finds shelter in the Catholic."

• Pope Benedict XVI

So now, is your statement or mine out of step with Rome?

Silencethelamb in Christ,

What gives you the idea that I quote the ECF’s as if they are the word of God? By the way, I don’t think I’ve even quoted them once on this thread. What gives you the idea that any Catholic does such a thing? Catholics point to the ECF’s as being reliable sources for the early Church understandings of scripture and doctrine. They are the first indicators, and perhaps the most reliable indicators of genuine apostolic traditions and understandings of scripture and doctrine.

Catholics do not believe that only the Pope can speak without error. You and I can speak without error when we say, “God is one…Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the Trinity.” The Pope can also speak in error. He might say that the San Francisco 49er’s will win their football game next Sunday and yet they may very well lose. You, on the other hand, might contend that their opponents will win and you would be the one that was correct. You need to educate yourself on the meaning of papal infallibility. To properly do this it is important that you go to Catholic sources and not to outsiders that don’t understand it. I would suggest that you start here:

google.com/cse?cx=008187825485874300314%3A1bfkl0u3vji&ie=UTF-8&q=papal+infallibility&sa=Search

What gives you the idea that we believe that only catholic clergy can properly interpret scripture? Unfortunately, I know some clergy members that do a poor job of interpreting scripture. Likewise, I know some that are incredibly good. I also know lay Catholics that do a great job of intepreting scripture, and I also have read some excellent non-Catholic scholars. The Catholic Church does not contend that only clergy can properly interpret scripture, and you are simply using strawman arguments.

Catholics have a great deal of freedom in interpreting scripture. Catholics, however, cannot interpret scripture to mean something that violates sound doctrine. Likewise, interpretation of scripture is never done in a vacuum. Proclamations of doctrine expounded from scripture that are binding on the Church are not just some made up interpretation by a clergyman or Pope. That is simply fallacious thinking.

There are people outside of the Catholic Church that receive grace and can impart grace by what they teach. This, however, is not an unqualified statement. If someone teaches something contrary to the “true word as taught” by the Catholic Church, then it is not a teaching by way of the Holy Spirit. I have read and heard some excellent and very inspired sermons by non-Catholics. I have also heard or read things by the same individuals that are simply off the mark. The thing to remember is that the truth is what it is. We do not make it up as we go along. We cannot interpret scripture to suit ourselves. Peter warns us in his second letter saying, “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,”[2 Peter 1:20].

Peter also tells us that some “twist it to their own destruction”[2 Peter 3:16].

You need to ponder these verses, and you need to ponder the fact that Peter infallibly declared that gentiles did not need to be circumcised. He made this declaration at the first council of Jerusalem and no one argued with him at the council. They all fell silent and accepted his infallible declaration. Likewise, even though Peter was a sinner, he went on to write two infallible letters/encyclicals. You need to think about this because you accept the Christian teaching on the Trinity which came to you by way of infallible teachings by the Catholic Church and the papacy. Likewise, many other doctrines that you accept came from that same source. The problem is that you have difficulty with certain doctrines even though they come from the same infallible source which is the Church. You need to ponder all of this prayerfully.

Catholics have many varying opinions on different subjects. Catholics are supposed to agree, however, on doctrine. I once sinfully played the part of a “Cafeteria Catholic” picking and choosing a few doctrines to ignore because they didn’t fit with what I wanted or thought. I was blessed with a powerful second conversion of heart, and began to question my own thoughts and my personal arrogance. Thorough study revealed to me that every disagreement that I had with Church teaching was unfounded on my part. The more than two thousand years of scriptural scholarship and Christian wisdom of the Church made my errant thoughts appear as burnt straw and intellectual chaff of which I am now quite ashamed.

cont. on next post

 

[Pax]

cont. from prior post

If you find some Catholics not agreeing with official Church teaching then you need to think about their views in one of the following ways:

1.They are ignorant and poorly catechised as to the actual teachings.
2.They grasp the teachings but are poor at articulating the teachings.
3. Or they simply wish to pick and choose by way of their personal desires, and still call themselves Catholic. I know because I used to be one of those offenders.

There is a difference between the Catholic Church and non-Catholic ecclesial communities that goes far beyond your references. Non-Catholic Churhes have important doctrinal disagreements with Catholics, and they also have important doctrinal disagreements with each other. They are all separate and distinct Churches because of these disagreements. Individual dissenters within the Catholic Church do not represent Catholic teaching. Catholic doctrine is unified. Individual dissenters within the various non-Catholic Churches are like Catholic dissenters within the Catholic Church. That is the only commonality on this particular point. The non-Catholic Churches themselves lack unity on official doctrines and that is the difference of which Catholics speak. You are attempting equate individual Catholic dissenters with non-Catholic disunity among denominations. These two things are not the same. Attempting to accuse the Catholic Church of having disunity like that of Protestant Churches is simply fallacious.

As far as your comments are concerned, I can only say that they do not reflect the Catholic position. I simply disagree with how you perceive the Catholic Church and Catholic teaching. As far as ecumenism is concerned…I happen to like the statement you quoted from Benedict XVI.

God bless.

 

[silencethelamb]

Silencethelamb in Christ,

What gives you the idea that I quote the ECF’s as if they are the word of God? By the way, I don’t think I’ve even quoted them once on this thread. What gives you the idea that any Catholic does such a thing? Catholics point to the ECF’s as being reliable sources for the early Church understandings of scripture and doctrine. They are the first indicators, and perhaps the most reliable indicators of genuine apostolic traditions and understandings of scripture and doctrine.

Catholics do not believe that only the Pope can speak without error. You and I can speak without error when we say, “God is one…Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the Trinity.” The Pope can also speak in error. He might say that the San Francisco 49er’s will win their football game next Sunday and yet they may very well lose. You, on the other hand, might contend that their opponents will win and you would be the one that was correct. You need to educate yourself on the meaning of papal infallibility. To properly do this it is important that you go to Catholic sources and not to outsiders that don’t understand it. I would suggest that you start here:

google.com/cse?cx=008187825485874300314%3A1bfkl0u3vji&ie=UTF-8&q=papal+infallibility&sa=Search

What gives you the idea that we believe that only catholic clergy can properly interpret scripture? Unfortunately, I know some clergy members that do a poor job of interpreting scripture. Likewise, I know some that are incredibly good. I also know lay Catholics that do a great job of intepreting scripture, and I also have read some excellent non-Catholic scholars. The Catholic Church does not contend that only clergy can properly interpret scripture, and you are simply using strawman arguments.

Catholics have a great deal of freedom in interpreting scripture. Catholics, however, cannot interpret scripture to mean something that violates sound doctrine. Likewise, interpretation of scripture is never done in a vacuum. Proclamations of doctrine expounded from scripture that are binding on the Church are not just some made up interpretation by a clergyman or Pope. That is simply fallacious thinking.

There are people outside of the Catholic Church that receive grace and can impart grace by what they teach. This, however, is not an unqualified statement. If someone teaches something contrary to the “true word as taught” by the Catholic Church, then it is not a teaching by way of the Holy Spirit. I have read and heard some excellent and very inspired sermons by non-Catholics. I have also heard or read things by the same individuals that are simply off the mark. The thing to remember is that the truth is what it is. We do not make it up as we go along. We cannot interpret scripture to suit ourselves. Peter warns us in his second letter saying, “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,”[2 Peter 1:20].

Peter also tells us that some “twist it to their own destruction”[2 Peter 3:16].

**You need to ponder these verses, and you need to ponder the fact that Peter infallibly **declared that gentiles did not need to be circumcised. He made this declaration at the first council of Jerusalem and no one argued with him at the council. They all fell silent and accepted his infallible declaration. Likewise, even though Peter was a sinner, he went on to write two infallible letters/encyclicals. You need to think about this because you accept the Christian teaching on the Trinity which came to you by way of infallible teachings by the Catholic Church and the papacy. Likewise, many other doctrines that you accept came from that same source. The problem is that you have difficulty with certain doctrines even though they come from the same infallible source which is the Church. You need to ponder all of this prayerfully.

Catholics have many varying opinions on different subjects. Catholics are supposed to agree, however, on doctrine. I once sinfully played the part of a “Cafeteria Catholic” picking and choosing a few doctrines to ignore because they didn’t fit with what I wanted or thought. I was blessed with a powerful second conversion of heart, and began to question my own thoughts and my personal arrogance. Thorough study revealed to me that every disagreement that I had with Church teaching was unfounded on my part. The more than two thousand years of scriptural scholarship and Christian wisdom of the Church made my errant thoughts appear as burnt straw and intellectual chaff of which I am now quite ashamed.

cont. on next post

You start out very well, by asking me a question and then you provide the answer I have already given in black below.
"What gives you the idea that we believe that only catholic clergy can properly interpret scripture"?

The Catholic Church does not contend that only clergy can properly interpret scripture, and you are simply using strawman arguments.

**If someone teaches something contrary to the “true word as taught” by the Catholic Church, then it is not a teaching by way of the Holy Spirit.
**

**You need to ponder these verses, and you need to ponder the fact that Peter infallibly declared **

which came to you by way of infallible teachings by the Catholic Church and the papacy.

I guess a poor dumb boy like myself sees you like a dog chasing his tail.
Its called talking in circles.
All your words lead to Rome instead of Jesus.

 

[Pax]

Soc in Christ,

I was wondering if you had any thoughts on my post #266. I know you’ve got a lot going with this thread, so there is no rush.

God bless

 

[silencethelamb]

cont. from prior post

**If you find some Catholics not agreeing with official Church teaching then you need to think about their views in one of the following ways:

1.They are ignorant and poorly catechised as to the actual teachings.
2.They grasp the teachings but are poor at articulating the teachings.
3. Or they simply wish to pick and choose by way of their personal desires, and still call themselves Catholic. I know because I used to be one of those offenders.**

There is a difference between the Catholic Church and non-Catholic ecclesial communities that goes far beyond your references. Non-Catholic Churhes have important doctrinal disagreements with Catholics, and they also have important doctrinal disagreements with each other. They are all separate and distinct Churches because of these disagreements. Individual dissenters within the Catholic Church do not represent Catholic teaching. Catholic doctrine is unified. Individual dissenters within the various non-Catholic Churches are like Catholic dissenters within the Catholic Church. That is the only commonality on this particular point. The non-Catholic Churches themselves lack unity on official doctrines and that is the difference of which Catholics speak. You are attempting equate individual Catholic dissenters with non-Catholic disunity among denominations. These two things are not the same. Attempting to accuse the Catholic Church of having disunity like that of Protestant Churches is simply fallacious.

As far as your comments are concerned, I can only say that they do not reflect the Catholic position. I simply disagree with how you perceive the Catholic Church and Catholic teaching. As far as ecumenism is concerned…I happen to like the statement you quoted from Benedict XVI.

God bless.

You said “You are attempting equate individual Catholic dissenters with non-Catholic disunity among denominations. These two things are not the same”.

My reply in defense of non Catholics or non Christians is the proper term.
1.They are ignorant and not born of the Spirit as to understand the actual teachings.
2.They grasp the teachings but are poor at articulating the teachings, because they lean unto their own understanding, not lead in the HS.
3. Or they simply wish to pick and choose by way of their personal desires, and still call themselves Christians. Name it and claim it teachers, are you naming and claiming Mat 16?

 

[Pax]

This is not a refutation. If you wish to refute what was presented then do so. There is a clear difference between individual dissenters vs. entire ecclesiastical groups that happen to disagree with one another.

God bless.

 

[silencethelamb]

This is not a refutation. If you wish to refute what was presented then do so. There is a clear difference between individual dissenters vs. entire ecclesiastical groups that happen to disagree with one another.

God bless.

No there isn’t
He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad.

 

[Thing]

No there isn’t
He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad.

Q. Where is the One True Church?

A. The Catholic Church is the one true Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

So I ask you; you reject the Catholic Church, then which church is now the One True Church?

According to the unbiased pages of Wikipedia, there are, I quote;

According to the World Christian Encyclopedia (year 2000 version), global Christianity had 33,820 denominations with 3,445,000 congregations/churches composed of 1,888 million affiliated Christians.

So which of these is the One True Church, and which of these will tell you they are the One True Church?

And what will become of you if you are not within the One True Church?

Protestantism Today

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Dear Soc,

    we have to go to the other of the two pericopes where the Lord speaks about the Church.  ( both cases  deal with  authority, BTW)

16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

18Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

19Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
20For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
21Then came Peter to him …

In paragraph 553 of the CCC we read.

553 Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."287 The “power of the keys” designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: "Feed my sheep."288
The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles289 and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.

I understand you at this point accept as true the first part of the paragraph 553.

If it is also agreed that there are essentially and approximately two dimensions in the “binding and loosing”, ie remission of sins and regulatory power, we have IMHO to distinguish between them to answer your question.

We see BTW the Apostles receiving explicitly the first power in John 20.
It makes sense IMHO that this power be possessed by Jesus’ minister as single person. You cannot expect to call a Council any time you have to Reconcile a single sinner.

On the other hand, it does not make so much sense thinking of many sources of regulatory power. Even if like-minded.
In a modern Parliament, eg, senators and congress(wo)men have legislative power collectively, we don’t see hundreds of legislative organs there.

So I’d say that binding and loosing, in its regulatory dimension, should be understood as a unitary collective power.

You clearly see, moreover, that verse 18 becomes plural ( ye shall bind) , even if immediately preceded by “let him be unto thee…”.
And followed by “two of you”…
Now, it could be expected that a delivery of powers to single apostles ( I’m not sure we have to believe there were only the apostles there) would be expressed, in such a context, with a simple “Whatsoever any of you…”…

You may note, OTOH, that in 16:19 the “binding and loosing” is conferred unequivocally to the person of Peter. Just as the keys are.
So that we cannot doubt Peter is a personal organ of whatever power is implied in the “binding and loosing”.

I hope this answer makes sense.

PS And what do we see implemented in the Church ?
Precisely that both Peter’s successor and sign of the unity of the Church as such and the college of the successors of the Apostles in communion with him, are the two twin sources of the doctrinal position and of the disciplines.

In Christ
P7

P7:

Yes, i think i understand what you are saying. But at the moment, i’m more interested in why you believe than what you believe. You said, a post or three ago, that the reason why you believe Christ gave the Keys only to Peter was because He was speaking only to Peter. Yet Christ was also speaking only to Peter when He gave him the authority to bind and loose in Matthew 16. Binding and loosing, you now tell me, belongs not only to Peter, but to all of the Apostles. So the fact that Jesus was speaking only to Peter in Matthew 16 does not demonstrate that only Peter could bind and loose. Why, then, do you still think that Christ speaking only to Peter is a good reason to believe that only Peter had the Keys? If binding and loosing belong to all, the Keys must belong to all, too. Or do you have another reason to believe only Peter received the keys?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Well I would have used different words.

1. you should recognize and follow the Church’s teaching, because it is the truth handed down from the Apostles
2. You should lead a sacramental life, partaking of the sacraments and living a life of love to the best of your ability, doing God’s will and staying in the state of Grace.

I beleive that most Christians would recognize the need to do Gods will, loving God and neighbor, but most non-Catholic Christians don’t recognize the sacraments role in salvation because they lose that (except the orthodox) when separating from Rome.

PC:

Yes, i believe many Christians desire to please God. In fact, i’d be so bold as to say that anyone who has not this desire might not be a genuine Christian. That’s certainly my driving force in seeking answers to my questions. Whether i’m right or wrong means little to me, so long as i am freed of my ignorance. So i want to be set free, and hope Christ will give you the keys, or the hacksaw, to remove my shackles!

And here is the ignorance–if indeed it is ignorance–that has chained to me: Evangelicals tell me that the gospel is not what you say, but is what the Apostle Paul says. And this is what He says:
1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

(1 Corinthians 15)

They tell me that Paul says the gospel he preached is what saves you or i from hell. They tell me this gospel that Paul explains says nothing about obeying the authority of the Catholic Church or partaking in the Sacraments. In fact, Paul’s gospel says nothing about what you or i should do, rather, it’s a gospel that speaks only about what Christ did for you and me. So partaking in the Sacraments, obeying the God-appointed authorities, and loving others as Christ loved us, while good, are not the gospel. At least that’s what Evangelicals say Paul says. What do you say in response to Paul?