P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Yes, I know your answer and it was as usual, avoiding a direct question.I believe I answered, Jesus
- Status
A
AwGusTeen
Guest
Thanks for answering a question that was never asked.
T
tweetymom
Guest
I cannot say anything but God’s word and Jesus is my authority.Yes, I know your answer and it was as usual, avoiding a direct question.
T
tweetymom
Guest
Hey you are most welcomeThanks for answering a question that was never asked.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
We know, but you never provided the scripture and verse showing us that scriptures was an only authority. Instead you post posts to derail and bury explanations without providing a detailed explanation or any resource supporting what you really believe. Your posts are merely ‘insinuations’ that your belief is superior to ours and that we are somehow wrong. This is as easy to see as it is to see your posts are without merit. It’s also easy to see you are your own authority and when you espouse your authority above all others, you become what you have so hard tried to convey an opinion against. It would be nice to see you explain what you hope to achieve on these forums.
J
Javl
Guest
Again you avoid answering a question. You only give your opinion. Aren’t you here to learn and to dialogue? Or are you here to prosletize and criticize? You ignore honest questions and dialogue and show no Christian charity in your answers, regardless of what you say. At least please show some courtesy in your answers and not be so curt and abrupt. Learn to explain yourself and dialogue as a TRUE Christian.
PAX DOMINI
Shalom aleichem
D
Dokimas
Guest
That’s not exactly correct. The original letters and copies of the letters were circulated from church to church.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Did you see the earlier post from Prodigal Son?
He listed many, many letters that were circulating from church to church. How is it that you know that they’re not inspired? Because the Councils of Bishops infallibly determined this canon of Scripture, 400 years later.
So, yes, there were original letters and copies of the letters of many different writings–but it wasn’t until the Bishops reviewed them and discarded them that Christians knew to reject them.
Originally cited by Prodigal Son:
New Testament Apocrypha
Dead Sea Scrolls
Community Rule
The ‘Zadokite’ Document
Narrative of Joseph of Arimathaea
Epistle of the Apostles
Report of Pilate the Procurator
History of Joseph the Carpenter
Apocryphon of James (Another version)
The Letter of Peter to Philip
Book of John the Evangelist
Ptolemy’s Commentary on the Gospel of John Prologue
Avenging of the Saviour
The Apocryphon of John (Long Version)
The Sentances of Sextus
Book of Thomas the Contender
Lost Books of the Bible
The GOSPEL of the BIRTH OF MARY
The PROTEVANGELION (Another version)
The first Gospel of the INFANCY of JESUS CHRIST
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas Composit
Greek (A)
Greek (B)
Latin
Infancy Compilation (all)
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew
THE EPISTLES of JESUS CHRIST and ABGARUS KING of EDESSA (Another version)
The GOSPEL of NICODEMUS (or ACTS of PONTIUS PILATE) (Another Version)
Letters of HEROD and PILATE
The APOSTLES’ CREED
THE EPISTLE of PAUL the APOSTLE to the LAODICEANS
The EPISTLES of PAUL the APOSTLE to SENECA (w/SENECA’s to PAUL)
The ACTS of PAUL and THECLA
The FIRST EPISTLE of CLEMENT to the CORINTHIANS
The SECOND EPISTLE of CLEMENT to the CORINTHIANS
The GENERAL EPISTLE OF BARNABAS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the EPHESIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the MAGNESIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the TRALLIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the ROMANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the PHILADELPHIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the SMYRNAEANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to POLYCARP
The EPISTLE of POLYCARP to the PHILIPPIANS
HERMAS
The First Book of HERMAS (or VISIONS)
The Second Book of HERMAS (or COMMANDS)
LETTERS OF HEROD AND PILATE
THE LOST GOSPEL ACCORDING TO PETER
THE GOSPEL of PETER - LAST
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the PHILIPPIANS
The MARTYRDOM of IGNATIUS
The MARTYRDOM of POLYCARP
TERTULLIAN on SPECTICALS
TERTULLIAN on PRAYER
TERTULLIAN on PATIENCE
TERTULLIAN on MARTYRS
The Report of Pilate to Caesar
Gospel of Bartholomew
Gospel of Thomas
Gospel of Phillip
Secret Gospel of Mark
Book of Marcion
Excerpts from the Gospel of Mary
The Letter of Aristeas
The Didache
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Hello Dokimas,
You realize they didn’t have paper and pen in those times? They used mostly skins and papyrus.
There is just so much modern day people take for granted. Prior to the printing press, it took almost a year to hand copy one Bible. Now factor in the great distances and the modes of transportation in those times, not to mention Christians were being widely persecuted and possession of such documents could have been a death penalty.
Even if we remove the 400 years it took to define the canon, the letters, epistles and Gospels were written approximately between 50 and 110AD. Yet, the Church not only survived, it grew!
You know there were many other writings to consider? Writings that were forgeries, writings that an author couldn’t be determined, writings that didn’t fully match everything written in chosen writings, etc. etc. etc. Here’s a link (it’s a Mormon website, but it has the best collection of a lot of those writings in one location). Pseudepigrapha, Apocrypha and Sacred Writings You’ll be amazed at all the writings. It even has the Gospel of Judas. None are scriptures, but some can give you insight to the events that took place.
Now, let’s consider the fact that those chosen writings did not include punctuation, chapter or verse numbers. Do you realize the changes that can happen with a small change in punctuation?
Luk 23:43 And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise.
Move one comma and see what happens.
Luk 23:43 And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee this day, thou shalt be with me in paradise.
Did the robber go that day to paradise or what it a promise that day he would be in paradise?
The Bible was written by, translated by, interpreted by, punctuation added by, canon defined by, preserved through the ages by, and read by fallible men.
There’s so much to consider, it seems one who really loves the Bible would take a little time to research it’s origin and until it came into their possession today.
So many people will read books written by authors of today and won’t take the time to read writings from the era of discussion. It just doesn’t make sense to me. Currently, I’m working my way through the writings of Flavius Josephus, a Jewish General that led the Jewish army in the wars with the Romans. He was captured by the Romans, but they let him live to document the war of the Jews. He wasn’t a Christian, but some of his writings confirm Christianity and some aspects of it. It’s a very interesting project for me and it’s giving me the history of the destruction of Jerusalem from an eyewitness perspective.
Just trying to provide some food for thought and a friendly suggestion.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Thanks, ProdicalSonHello Dokimas,
You realize they didn’t have paper and pen in those times? They used mostly skins and papyrus.
There is just so much modern day people take for granted. Prior to the printing press, it took almost a year to hand copy one Bible. Now factor in the great distances and the modes of transportation in those times, not to mention Christians were being widely persecuted and possession of such documents could have been a death penalty.
Even if we remove the 400 years it took to define the canon, the letters, epistles and Gospels were written approximately between 50 and 110AD. Yet, the Church not only survived, it grew!
You know there were many other writings to consider? Writings that were forgeries, writings that an author couldn’t be determined, writings that didn’t fully match everything written in chosen writings, etc. etc. etc. Here’s a link (it’s a Mormon website, but it has the best collection of a lot of those writings in one location). Pseudepigrapha, Apocrypha and Sacred Writings You’ll be amazed at all the writings. It even has the Gospel of Judas. None are scriptures, but some can give you insight to the events that took place.
Now, let’s consider the fact that those chosen writings did not include punctuation, chapter or verse numbers. Do you realize the changes that can happen with a small change in punctuation?
Luk 23:43 And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise.
Move one comma and see what happens.
Luk 23:43 And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee this day, thou shalt be with me in paradise.
Did the robber go that day to paradise or what it a promise that day he would be in paradise?
The Bible was written by, translated by, interpreted by, punctuation added by, canon defined by, preserved through the ages by, and read by fallible men.
There’s so much to consider, it seems one who really loves the Bible would take a little time to research it’s origin and until it came into their possession today.
So many people will read books written by authors of today and won’t take the time to read writings from the era of discussion. It just doesn’t make sense to me. Currently, I’m working my way through the writings of Flavius Josephus, a Jewish General that led the Jewish army in the wars with the Romans. He was captured by the Romans, but they let him live to document the war of the Jews. He wasn’t a Christian, but some of his writings confirm Christianity and some aspects of it. It’s a very interesting project for me and it’s giving me the history of the destruction of Jerusalem from an eyewitness perspective.
Just trying to provide some food for thought and a friendly suggestion.
M
mmmcounts
Guest
I don’t think it’s all that profitable to go around telling Catholics “I think this specific doctrine is simply untrue.” It’s just…pointless. People would look at me and say “Why do I care?” And rightly so. However, a complete lack of patristic support for a particular doctrine is a more relevant matter at times- especially when a Catholic brings up how Rome has been preserving the true teaching of Jesus ever since the first century (as I post this, that comment is now several pages back). This doctrine was clearly not a teaching of Jesus, though, nor was it an apostolic teaching, or something taught by the ECF’s, or by anyone for several centuries after that.
People saw these things. They knew of the Holy Spirit, of Jesus, and of God the Father. The “ironing out” really was a matter of clarification in terms of giving authoritative support to some teachings and rejecting others. These teachings- the correct ones, especially- actually did exist from the time of Jesus as it was during His lifetime that much of this was revealed.
Side note: These councils did not, however, come together and say “God will protect us from error as we do this…wait for it…ok people, this is infallible!” As stated earlier, it was not until the 9th century that anyone raised the possibility that an ecumenical council could have possibly been infallible in what it came up with.
Back to the point: The Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility was not a clarification of something that was revealed by Jesus, taught by the apostles, or taught by the ECF’s. The concept of a person or group of people being protected from error when interpreting or teaching did not exist in any form until the 9th century. That was when the first step was taken.
“Unanimous patristic consent as a reliable locus theologicus is classical in Catholic theology; it has often been declared such by the magisterium and its value in scriptural interpretation has been especially stressed. Application of the principle is difficult, at least at a certain level. In regard to individual texts of Scripture total patristic consensus is rare… But it does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching."
-Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions (New York: Macmillan Company, 1966), pp. 397-400.
At a dead minimum, you have to admit that in this case, you cannot make a claim for the “reliable locus theologicus” that you would make for almost any other Church teaching. Even in the early interpretations of Matthew 16:18, you don’t have a consensus or even a majority opinion for an interpretation that accommodates the potential of papal primacy, and the very question of infallibility didn’t even exist yet.
I understand that Catholics are all too familiar with this kind of argument- it’s used against Protestants all the time. I am quite familiar with the defensive side of this issue that you are now forced to be on when talking about this doctrine. So let me briefly remind you of what Protestants do in this situation: We cite Biblical, apostolic, and/or patristic support for a particular teaching and state that Protestants seek a return to the truth of Christ’s Church, especially regarding specific teachings that were abandoned by Roman Catholicism, particularly through the Middle Ages. We fully understand the terms of this sort of “discussion:” if we can’t demonstrate any kind of support for a particular teaching prior to the Reformation, the “recovery” claims don’t really hold up. You can’t recover something that never existed, and you can’t fix ignorance of a teaching that was never taught. In conversations regarding any of the Solas, the Protestant canon, and many other issues, this is par for the course.
Now it’s all flipped, though. With regard to papal infallibility, it is Catholics who are forced to take up this defensive position that is normally occupied by Protestants. I’ve used a number of historical sources to demonstrate that there isn’t any hint of papal infallibility in the words of Jesus, in the teaching of the apostles, in the writing of the ECF’s, or in any other form until several centuries after Rome became the dominant force in worldwide Christianity. I’m actually quite interested in seeing how you handle it from this side. I’m used to doing it from that side, and I do take it as seriously as I can, if only for may own sake. I explore, find the sources, and do the work.
So I’m quite interested in seeing what you do- if nothing else, it may inform me of what it is that Catholics expect from me next time I’m in the usual spot. I certainly hope it goes beyond “Meh, it doesn’t matter.” Because if that’s what I get, you can be sure that I’ll give you an anonymous mention next time a Catholic tells me SS and Sola Fide are 16th-century innovations that weren’t ever taught or practiced by the usual suspects- apostles, Jesus, ECF’s, patristic support, you name it.
If I chose to go this route in support of the Solas, you would feel like you “got me” right there. If I were in your position, I don’t think you’d catch me making that argument.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Yes, you seem to understand the absurdity of the Protestant position quite well.
The problem that Protestants face is quite different from the horns of the false dilemma you will seek to impale me upon below. Sola scriptura and sola fide have no basis in scripture (though scriptures are always cited in support of heresies), were not taught by the Apostles and were not held by the ECF’s; thus, they cannot be tied directly to anything that came before. These are truly theological novums (nova?). Granted, you might find a quote from an ECF or two that seems to suggest strong support for scripture, etc., but this is far short of proof that the Church as a whole embraced these beliefs prior to Luther.
But more than this, sola scriptura and sola fide cannot be said to be doctrinal developments because they are counter to what the ancient faith holds on justification and authority. In fact, they can be demonstrated to be counter to the teaching of scritpture itself. You can’t honestly believe that position B developed from position A when B is 180 degrees opposite of A. It doesn’t work that way. You’ll disagree and we could start new threads on each sola if you like, but at the end of the day, I don’t think you’ll be able to prove that either doctrine is either Apostolic or a reasonable development of pre-existing doctrine.
Papal infallibility, on the other hand, can either be supported from the implications of scripture itself or as a logical extension of previously understood doctrine.
I obviously disagree as stated above.
Well, one thing that won’t be expected of you is a reference to a declared dogma of an infallible Church in support of your non-Catholic opinions.
However, before I tackle this, I’d like to clarify one point:
Your objection (in this particular instance) is to the doctrine of papal infallibility as distinct from the infallibility of the Church, corrrect? I want to be sure that we’ve narrowed the scope of the discussion correctly.
Perhaps you’d like to offer a statement that we can affirm or deny?
S
schaick
Guest
That is exactly what one of your fellow Catholics has posted:
I understand what a Catholic might think this means - The Essential Catholic Survival Guide; Catholic Answers San Diego, 2005. Show me in the Gospel where this is the case.
Aren’t you saying that the Keys open Heaven’s gate and Jesus is the gate? That only through membership of the Catholic Church can we get to Jesus/gate to go through Him and reach heaven?
When Jesus gives the authority to bind and loose to the Apostles in Matthew 18 it is the authority to discipline and forgive people so a person could lead their flock on the right path.
Are the Keys of Heaven something more then this?
Rats, now I feel like we are going around in a circle. What does holding the Keys give the Pope if not authority? If the Keys are separate from infallibility when was this given to Popes by Jesus?
Ok so the Pope has infallibility to say what the position, teaching of the Catholic Church is to be. So only the Pope can interprete Scripture for the Catholic Church?
When the Pope has died no one holds the Keys? No new doctrine can be put in place.
I guess where I still have a hang up-Why is there a need for doctrines old and new ones when all we need for Salvation is in the Gospel.
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
Jesus says to Peter: “…you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church…” The WORD “PETER” MEANS “ROCK” IN GREEK. So, Jesus is referring to this when He says: Peter, your very name means “rock”, and it is upon YOU, Peter ("rock) that I will build my church…
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
The first time Jesus gave that authority, it was to one and before witnesses. This was as He announced that He was building a Church.
**Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. **
The second time Christ said this, it was establishing the authority of His Church. The heirarchy had been established with His first announcement. To the Apostles, appointed by Him, this was, ‘as I told the leader, I tell you.’
Mat 18:17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
Mat 18:18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.
No other author in the New Testament used those terms, ‘bind and loose’. The closest we find is when John wrote:
Joh 20:23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.
There is no need to re-interpret scriptures. Interpretation of scriptures have been passed down through the ages to present day.
I feel sure you’ve seen it explained before, but I give it again ‘just incase’. There was an intended Apostolic succession. It is scriptural.
Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.
To answer your last paragraph, let me use the example of the canon of the Bible. For 1500 years, there was no disputes on the canon. After the Protestant reformation, Martin Luther decided to use the Hebrew canon over the Greek canon, which took away from the books that had been read and accepted up to that point. The infallible definition of the canonical books came from the Council of Trent in 1556 to prevent further errors from occuring.
We received a Church that came with tradition and scriptures. Some teachings were ‘taken for granted’, for a lack of better words, as they were accepted and believed by everyone. Once teachings become endangered, infallible decisions were proglumated to protect a teaching from being erroneous.
Infalliblity is not something that is abused, the last time an infallible decision was made was over 50 years ago.
Infallibilty does not mean that everything a Pope says is infallible. There are things we are at liberty to disagree with the Pope on.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
If you are this familiar with Catholic Apologetics, then you must also know that you’ll first need to show us where the Bible says that we have to prove everything from the Bible Alone. Fact is, the Bible doesn’t require that, and we are not under any obligation to meet your demand.
As for whether anyone outside the Catholic Church can be saved, the argument is simple and easily understood. Here is the explanation and the core of the argument:
The Necessity of Being Catholic (Condensed)
by James Akin
chnetwork.org/journals/nesschurch/ness_7.htm
- To be saved it is necessary to be a Christian.
- To be a Christian it is necessary to be a member of Christ’s Church.
- To be a member of Christ’s Church it is necessary to be a member of the Catholic Church.
- To be a member of the Catholic Church it is necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
- Therefore, it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
Absolutely. However, and this is where you will find peace, it is not absolutely necessary to be a formal member of the Catholic Church. The article above explains everything you need to know.
Could you show from Mt. 18 exactly where this understanding of authority is stated? I agree that men have the authority to forgive sins - this is why we confess our sins to priests - but I know that you do not do this so I’m not sure what “forgiveness” you speak of here.
One example would be taht people weren’t worried about in vitro fertilization in the Biblical times. Doctrine must be developed to include new issues as they arise. Other doctrines are developed over time as theologians have time to explore the implications of the Gospel delivered once for all to the saints.
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Subscribed.
S
schaick
Guest
Don’t want to go off topic here but here are a few verses. I have never counted on my own but have read that Jesus refers to Scripture over 100 times and never to tradition. Except when He condemns those that follow man-made traditions over Scripture:
Mark 7
7They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.’ 8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."
**Matthew 4:1-11 **shows us how Jesus sites Scripture.
Jesus shows the importanc of Scripture:
Matthew 12
3He answered, "Haven’t you read …
Mark 12
24Jesus replied, "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God?
Scripture for proof of what is being taught:
Luke 1
1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
Then in letters circulating around the newly forming Churches
No need to add doctrines to the church::
1 Corinthians 4
6Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.
Scripture equips man for everything:
2 Timothy 3
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
You don’t have to trust a man you have scripture:
Acts 17
11Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. 12Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.
Paul uses Scripture:
Acts 17
2As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
1 Corinthians 4
6Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.
To me the explanation takes Jesus out of the equation, that must be why GOD in HIS sovernity allowed other denominations to form.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
(I had to delete most of your post to fit a response due to character limitations of these forums)
An example of ‘oral tradition’ and Jesus immediately came to mind.
Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.
How did the people know what he was referencing about the ‘chair of Moses’? Christ didn’t explain it, and no one questioned it. It’s not written about anywhere else in scriptures…
Several scriptures you provide are ironic in that Christ is correcting interpretations of scriptures.
Mat 22:29 And Jesus answering, said to them: You err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.
Mar 12:24 And Jesus answering, saith to them: Do ye not therefore err, because you know not the scriptures nor the power of God?
Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures: for you think in them to have life everlasting. And the same are they that give testimony of me.
Christ had to explain how the scriptures pointed to Him, because they did not receive it from their interpretation.
Luk 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures the things that were concerning him.
As you quote 1 Corinthians 4:6, you realize he was telling about what he wrote to them and not scriptures, i.e. Old Testament, there was no New Testament at that time. We also know St. Paul wrote:
2Th 2:15 (2:14) Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.
When you reference 2 Timothy 3:16, your translation states useful, below it states profitable. As discussed previously in this thread, useful or profitable is short of complete or all that is needed.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:
Your example of the Bereans has been discussed in this thread. They searched the scriptures to see if what Paul preached to them was true. First came the spoken word of authority, when some of them believed, more believed once they checked the scriptures and even after checking the scriptures, not ALL of them believed.
You believe God allowed denominations to be formed? Are all those denominations of the same mind and judgment? Are they in harmony with one another and in one voice glorifying God?
Joh 10:16 And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.
1Co 1:10 I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.
Php 2:2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.
Rom 15:5 May the God of steadfastness and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus,
Rom 15:6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Your use of bind and loose is lost on me. Are you saying we ALL have the power to bind and loose on earth and whatever we decide the Lord will bind and loose in heaven? Of course not! That was in reference to the authority Christ was explaining about His Church.
Mat 18:17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
Mat 18:18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.
You say we can confess our sins to Jesus, as Catholics do in confession. Then you quote John 20:22, where He was specifically and only speaking to His Apostles, the authority He had appointed over His Church. Individually, we have no authority to forgive and retain sins.
Joh 20:23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.
Please read through the thread more closely and see I have repeated a lot of what has already been explained. If I’ve missed any of your points, please let me know and I’ll address them.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
An important distinction, don’t you think? We should all condemn man-made traditions, but Tradition which is part of the Gospel handed down from the Apostles? No, that we must "hold fast’.
Amen! Catholics love all those verses. But they do not prove that we must prove everything solely from scripture, do they?
A frequently misunderstood passage. Here’s help:
GOING BEYOND
By Patrick Madrid
catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9208chap.asp
The man who has been properly TRAINED by a good teacher may be thoroughly equipped, but the man who doesn’t know the Gospel or the context of the life of the Church will make a mess of any attempt to interpret scripture on his own. Need a verse or do you know where I’m going?
(cont.)
- Status