What is Christ's Church?

[KathleenElsie]

scripturecatholic.com

Once Saved, Always Saved?
…how do you respond to the Protestant doctrine “once saved, always saved?”

J. Salza: The doctrine of “once saved, always saved” was invented by John Calvin during the Reformation. Under this theory, the Protestant believes that one is saved when he accepts Jesus as personal Lord and Savior. This is comforting - after all, who wouldn’t want assurance? According to this view, true Christians are the ones who will persevere to the end. For those who accepted Christ during their lives but did not persevere to the end, the doctrine calls these people superficial Christians. So true Christians will go to heaven and superficial Christians will not. Not only is this teaching not Scriptural, it is difficult to accept the teaching on reason.
The only distinction between a true Christian and a superficial Christian is that the superficial Christian did not persevere to the end. Otherwise, the two types of Christians appear to be the same. The superficial Christian has all the earmarks of a true Christian except that he did not persevere. But this necessarily means that the true Christian cannot know that he really is a true Christian either until the end of his life. He, too, won’t know whether his conversion was genuine until the end of his life. Therefore, despite all the talk about assurance, he cannot be sure.
This doctrine, therefore, actually gives its adherents less assurance of their salvation. It necessarily imposes upon them uncertainty until the end. The Catholic (and Scriptural) view, however, does give assurance to the believer that he is in fact currently saved (a true Christian), and that, if he perseveres to the end, he will be saved at death. We also know that God will give all the graces necessary for us to be faithful to the end (because of our freewill, the question is always whether we will accept the grace or not). Thus, Catholics know that it is theirs to lose. Protestant Calvinists don’t even know whether it is theirs to begin with.
John Salza

Better said then I could have worded it.

 

[KathleenElsie]

scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html#the_church-I

I. Peter is the Rock on which the Church is Built
Mark 3:16; John 1:42 – Jesus renames Simon “Kepha” in Aramaic which literally means “rock.” This was an extraordinary thing for Jesus to do, because “rock” was not even a name in Jesus’ time. Jesus did this, not to give Simon a strange name, but to identify his new status among the apostles. When God changes a person’s name, He changes their status.
Gen. 17:5; 32:28; 2 Kings 23:34; Acts 9:4; 13:9 - for example, in these verses, we see that God changes the following people’s names and, as a result, they become special agents of God: Abram to Abraham; Jacob to Israel, Eliakim to Jehoiakim, Saul to Paul.
2 Sam. 22:2-3, 32, 47; 23:3; Psalm 18:2,31,46; 19:4; 28:1; 42:9; 62:2,6,7; 89:26; 94:22; 144:1-2 - in these verses, God is also called “rock.” Hence, from these verses, non-Catholics often argue that God, and not Peter, is the rock that Jesus is referring to in Matt. 16:18. This argument not only ignores the plain meaning of the applicable texts, but also assumes words used in Scripture can only have one meaning. This, of course, is not true. For example:
1 Cor. 3:11 - Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church, and yet in Eph. 2:20, the apostles are called the foundation of the Church. Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Acts 20:28, the apostles are called the shepherds of the flock. These verses show that there are multiple metaphors for the Church, and that words used by the inspired writers of Scripture can have various meanings. Catholics agree that God is the rock of the Church, but this does not mean He cannot confer this distinction upon Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus said in Aramaic, you are “Kepha” and on this “Kepha” I will build my Church. In Aramaic, “kepha” means a massive stone, and “evna” means little pebble. Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is “petra”, that “Petros” actually means “a small rock”, and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus’ blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used “Kepha,” not “evna.” Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter.
Moreover, if the translator wanted to identify Peter as the “small rock,” he would have used “lithos” which means a little pebble in Greek. Also, Petros and petra were synonyms at the time the Gospel was written, so any attempt to distinguish the two words is inconsequential. Thus, Jesus called Peter the massive rock, not the little pebble, on which He would build the Church. (You don’t even need Matt. 16:18 to prove Peter is the rock because Jesus renamed Simon “rock” in Mark 3:16 and John 1:42!).
Matt. 16:17 - to further demonstrate that Jesus was speaking Aramaic, Jesus says Simon “Bar-Jona.” The use of “Bar-Jona” proves that Jesus was speaking Aramaic. In Aramaic, “Bar” means son, and “Jonah” means John or dove (Holy Spirit). See Matt. 27:46 and Mark 15:34 which give another example of Jesus speaking Aramaic as He utters in rabbinical fashion the first verse of Psalm 22 declaring that He is the Christ, the Messiah. This shows that Jesus was indeed speaking Aramaic, as the Jewish people did at that time.
Matt. 16:18 - also, in quoting “on this rock,” the Scriptures use the Greek construction “tautee tee” which means on “this” rock; on “this same” rock; or on “this very” rock. “Tautee tee” is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter, the subject of the sentence (and not his confession of faith as some non-Catholics argue) as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. The demonstrative (“tautee”) generally refers to its closest antecedent (“Petros”). Also, there is no place in Scripture where “faith” is equated with “rock.”
Matt. 16:18-19 - in addition, to argue that Jesus first blesses Peter for having received divine revelation from the Father, then diminishes him by calling him a small pebble, and then builds him up again by giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven is entirely illogical, and a gross manipulation of the text to avoid the truth of Peter’s leadership in the Church. This is a three-fold blessing of Peter - you are blessed, you are the rock on which I will build my Church, and you will receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven (not you are blessed for receiving Revelation, but you are still an insignificant little pebble, and yet I am going to give you the keys to the kingdom).

Scripture references for Peter as the Rock and thus Christ’s Church is the Catholic Church not something invisible.
continued in next post

 

[KathleenElsie]

Part two
scripturecatholic.com/the…l#the_church-I

Luke 6:48 - the house (the Church) built upon the rock (Peter) cannot be shaken by floods (which represent the heresies, schisms, and scandals that the Church has faced over the last 2,000 years). Floods have occurred, but the Church still remains on its solid rock foundation.
Matt. 16:21 - it is also important to note that it was only after Jesus established Peter as leader of the Church that He began to speak of His death and departure. This is because Jesus had now appointed His representative on earth.
John 21:15 - Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus “more than these,” referring to the other apostles. Jesus singles Peter out as the leader of the apostolic college.
John 21:15-17 - Jesus selects Peter to be the chief shepherd of the apostles when He says to Peter, “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep.” Peter will shepherd the Church as Jesus’ representative.
Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus also prays that Peter’s faith may not fail and charges Peter to be the one to strengthen the other apostles - "Simon, satan demanded to have you (plural, referring to all the apostles) to sift you (plural) like wheat, but I prayed for you (singular) that your (singular) faith may not fail, and when you (singular) have turned again, strengthen your brethren.
Acts 1,2,3,4,5,8,15 - no one questions Peter’s authority to speak for the Church, declare anathemas, and resolve doctrinal debates. Peter is the rock on which the Church is built who feeds Jesus’ sheep and whose faith will not fail.
Matt. 16:13 - also, from a geographical perspective, Jesus renames Simon to rock in Caesarea Philippi near a massive rock formation on which Herod built a temple to Caesar. Jesus chose this setting to further emphasize that Peter was indeed the rock on which the Church would be built.
Matt. 7:24 - Jesus, like the wise man, builds His house on the rock (Peter), not on grain of sand (Simon) so the house will not fall.

Matt. 16:18-19 – to further rebut the Protestant argument that Jesus was speaking about Peter’s confession of faith (not Peter himself) based on the revelation he received, the verses are clear that Jesus, after acknowledging Peter’s receipt of divine revelation, turns the whole discourse to the person of Peter: Blessed are “you” Simon, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to “you,” and I tell “you,” “you” are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church. I will give “you” the keys to the kingdom, and whatever “you” bind and loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven. Jesus’ whole discourse relates to the person of Peter, not his confession of faith.

God Bless

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Part two
scripturecatholic.com/the…l#the_church-I

God Bless

Truly, as has been shown before, just as many bible references can be made for Paul being the Pope.
I have the 51 biblical truths for the Primacy of Paul… would you like them?

 

[E.E.N.S]

Truly, as has been shown before, just as many bible references can be made for Paul being the Pope.
I have the 51 biblical truths for the Primacy of Paul… would you like them?

Yes, please provide them.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

members.aol.com/jasonte3/paul51.htm

 

[KathleenElsie]

Truly, as has been shown before, just as many bible references can be made for Paul being the Pope.
I have the 51 biblical truths for the Primacy of Paul… would you like them?

Start another thread on this so everyone can join in.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Start another thread on this so everyone can join in.

Feel free…
My point is that by sheer number it is ridiculous to make this claim… It is like saying Peter’s name was brought up more…HE is more important.

Both are grade school apologetics…

 

[MrS]

Truly, as has been shown before, just as many bible references can be made for Paul being the Pope.
I have the 51 biblical truths for the Primacy of Paul… would you like them?

if you believe in them… post them for all to opine

 

[KathleenElsie]

Feel free…
My point is that by sheer number it is ridiculous to make this claim… It is like saying Peter’s name was brought up more…HE is more important.

Both are grade school apologetics…

Well sure, but when one side uses scripture only then the other side needs to challenge with scripture also. Both are scriptural references not grade school apologetics.
And Peter was brought up more then Paul. This is just a simple fact of numbers.

 

[MrS]

Thanks for your list… some one was busy…

I was only able to look over the list quickly… but as a truly “amateur” apologist, I saw many, many false suppositions.

By the way… St Paul was not only NOT one of the 12, he was not even eligible to be one of the 12.

As for writing more “books”… so what. Luke wrote far more “words”.

And the Gospel writers relay more of what the Lord actually said, than to what St Paul tried to explain He said.

Paul is very prominent in the early Church … true. But it is clearly St Peter who is first among equals… and only St Peter who is given such authority to be the holder of the keys… never Paul.

 

[mrs_abbott]

Mother Church has always maintained that all who are baptised are part of Her family, even if they leave home for whatever reason. If her children who have left have children, she will gladly love them as well and desires to give them all that she has if only they will open thier arms to receive. If any of her children whether at home in the church, or abroad in the Protestant realm, become errant and die in thier sin, she will suffer and mourn the loss of her children.

I liked your analogy!
But, in your analogy, you said that the parents would always love the children no matter what I think of he or she as their child.
How do you explain excommunication in the church then? Wouldn’t that signify, if one were to get excommunicated, that the church doesn’t want them to belong to them anymore?
Just asking.

 

[I_Leatherman]

I liked your analogy!
But, in your analogy, you said that the parents would always love the children no matter what I think of he or she as their child.
How do you explain excommunication in the church then? Wouldn’t that signify, if one were to get excommunicated, that the church doesn’t want them to belong to them anymore?
Just asking.

The opposite I would say. The individual cuts themselves off from the vine, the Church - depending on the circumstance - may affirm publically that the individual is indeed no longer within the Church. But this is done for that individuals benefit that they may return and not remain in their errors.

 

[jmcrae]

How do you explain excommunication in the church then? Wouldn’t that signify, if one were to get excommunicated, that the church doesn’t want them to belong to them anymore?
Just asking.

In the Church, excommunication is analogous to being “sent to your room” - and no supper for you, until you can apologize to your mother for your behaviour - the person is still a member of the Church, but they are not allowed to receive Holy Communion at Mass, or to use any of the Sacraments until they have a meeting with the Bishop to work out their problems and make a good Confession.

An excommunicated person can only make his confession to a Bishop, and it’s the Bishop who will then lift the excommunication and restore the person back into the Church.

An excommunicated person is a Catholic who is not allowed to participate in the Sacraments - they don’t ever become non-Catholics unless they themselves actually renounce their faith and publicly declare that they no longer wish to be considered Catholic.

To be kicked out of the Church altogether would be called “disfellowshipping” - we Catholics do not practice disfellowshipping, and there is no provision for such a thing in any of our laws or customs.

 

[mrs_abbott]

In the Church, excommunication is analogous to being “sent to your room” - and no supper for you, until you can apologize to your mother for your behaviour - the person is still a member of the Church, but they are not allowed to receive Holy Communion at Mass, or to use any of the Sacraments until they have a meeting with the Bishop to work out their problems and make a good Confession.

An excommunicated person can only make his confession to a Bishop, and it’s the Bishop who will then lift the excommunication and restore the person back into the Church.

An excommunicated person is a Catholic who is not allowed to participate in the Sacraments - they don’t ever become non-Catholics unless they themselves actually renounce their faith and publicly declare that they no longer wish to be considered Catholic.

To be kicked out of the Church altogether would be called “disfellowshipping” - we Catholics do not practice disfellowshipping, and there is no provision for such a thing in any of our laws or customs.

Ok, thanks for clarifying that. For some reason I thought excommunication was like “get out and never come back” because it was something that never hardly happens and is hardly ever discussed.

 

[mikeledes]

members.aol.com/jasonte3/paul51.htm

Interesting article. Only problem is that Paul is not given the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 16:18-19), he conferred with Peter (Galatians), and, in the Council of Jerusalem, was not the first one who formally explained and taught salvation by grace. In fact, Paul and Barnabas spoke - after Peter - but James refers to what Peter said.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[KathleenElsie]

In the Church, excommunication is analogous to being “sent to your room” - and no supper for you, until you can apologize to your mother for your behaviour - the person is still a member of the Church, but they are not allowed to receive Holy Communion at Mass, or to use any of the Sacraments until they have a meeting with the Bishop to work out their problems and make a good Confession.

An excommunicated person can only make his confession to a Bishop, and it’s the Bishop who will then lift the excommunication and restore the person back into the Church.

An excommunicated person is a Catholic who is not allowed to participate in the Sacraments - they don’t ever become non-Catholics unless they themselves actually renounce their faith and publicly declare that they no longer wish to be considered Catholic.

To be kicked out of the Church altogether would be called “disfellowshipping” - we Catholics do not practice disfellowshipping we Catholics have true HOPE that all will avail themselves of the opportunity to go to heaven , and there is no provision for such a thing in any of our laws or customs.

 

[rciadan]

Hi,

That is fine and I will take Christ’s word that the Church was built on the rock–Jesus.

Uh, why is it that you, who claim “if it isn’t in the scriptures it must not be so” will insert words into the mouth of Jesus Christ Himself that are not there: that are diametrically opposed to what He **did **say?

 

[MrS]

Uh, why is it that you, who claim “if it isn’t in the scriptures it must not be so” will insert words into the mouth of Jesus Christ Himself that are not there: that are diametrically opposed to what He **did **say?

either because:

[1] you can not be a Protestant unless you protest something

[2] you can not submit to an authority that you must deny for your existence

[3] you cannot give higher credance to the Gospels, all the while using St Paul’s oft confusing message/instruction as your source that is “first among equals”

 

[mrs_abbott]

Uh, why is it that you, who claim “if it isn’t in the scriptures it must not be so” will insert words into the mouth of Jesus Christ Himself that are not there: that are diametrically opposed to what He **did **say?

Because scripture is the only thing solid and concrete to refer back to when Jesus’ teachings are talked about. The scriptures are Christ’s infallible words.
As far as the different interpretations go, you have to expect that since the Bible has been translated a few times over the years.