I know we agree that God’s Word in the Bible is the only measure of truth.
How do you measure truth. The bible says if you cannot agree on something “go to the Church”. Clearly, Christ sets up a visible Church to lead His people.
Its easy to overlook the fact that we are active agents in all this, and our agency has been influenced by life experience, the beliefs of significant others, etc, etc. (Who told us that the bible / the church / the Quoran has final authority? Why did we believe them - and what was in it for us?)
From my perspective, authority is as much bestowed as it is recognised.
Cheers,
Eric.
The bible says if you cannot agree on something “go to the Church”.
Just wondering where it says that?
Matt 18:17-18
“If he refuses to listen to then, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be found in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Frank you are wrong. The Catholic Church is against human traditions. When Catholics talk about Traditions, it only relates to the deposit of faith handed down by the Apostles. 2 Thess 2:15 - “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter”.
And let’s face it, that deposit of faith situation isn’t a perfect vessel, otherwise priests wouldn’t abuse children sexually.
Jesus was not referring to the Christian church of the time, but the synagogues and the Temple. Jesus had not died yet, and the Holy Spirit had not come. He was not advocating decisions made by a denomination, but by the faithful community. This doesn’t require the Pope or the Roman Catholic priesthood.
Don’t get too defensive about Roman Catholicism on this board, because it is run by a group of people who have rejected the Roman Catholic Church. I need to see some stunning arguments to determine the validity of Communion according to the Roman Catholic Church in light of Hebrews which flat out rejects a lot of the transubstantiation suppositions it holds to.
And let’s face it, that deposit of faith situation isn’t a perfect vessel, otherwise priests wouldn’t abuse children sexually.
So from this comment I’m guessing you don’t know what the “deposit of faith” is?
Leigh Hardwick - 24 November 2008 04:16 PM
Jesus was not referring to the Christian church of the time, but the synagogues and the Temple. Jesus had not died yet, and the Holy Spirit had not come. He was not advocating decisions made by a denomination, but by the faithful community. This doesn’t require the Pope or the Roman Catholic priesthood.
Where are the synagogues and Temple mentioned? While you’re at it, I’d be interested in what you make of the idea of binding and loosing things on heaven and earth.
Leigh Hardwick - 24 November 2008 04:16 PM
Don’t get too defensive about Roman Catholicism on this board, because it is run by a group of people who have rejected the Roman Catholic Church.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m fine. I love the opportunity to overturn people’s misperceptions about Roman Catholicism.
Leigh Hardwick - 24 November 2008 04:16 PM
I need to see some stunning arguments to determine the validity of Communion according to the Roman Catholic Church in light of Hebrews which flat out rejects a lot of the transubstantiation suppositions it holds to.
What are you referring to in particular? If you’re talking about Christ dying “once for all”, then we’ve been over this about twenty-three times - the sacrifice of the Mass does not occur over and over again, but is a re-presentation of the same sacrifice at Calvary.
Frank the Bble condems human tradition but not the tradition of the Word of God..which was first passed on orally and in written epistle..
It is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.
They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churchs. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, )
Paul illustrated what tradition is: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed” (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2).
The first Christians “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35).
This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. Indeed, even the Gospels themselves are oral tradition which has been written down (Luke 1:1–4). What’s more, Paul does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in Ephesians 5:14. These and other things have been given to Christians “through the Lord Jesus” (1 Thess. 4:2).
Hope you find that helpful, Frank..just don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
And let’s face it, that deposit of faith situation isn’t a perfect vessel, otherwise priests wouldn’t abuse children sexually.
Jesus was not referring to the Christian church of the time, but the synagogues and the Temple. Jesus had not died yet, and the Holy Spirit had not come. He was not advocating decisions made by a denomination, but by the faithful community. This doesn’t require the Pope or the Roman Catholic priesthood.
Don’t get too defensive about Roman Catholicism on this board, because it is run by a group of people who have rejected the Roman Catholic Church. I need to see some stunning arguments to determine the validity of Communion according to the Roman Catholic Church in light of Hebrews which flat out rejects a lot of the transubstantiation suppositions it holds to.
Leigh
The ‘deposit of faith’ has nothing to do with people in the Church who sin. Jesus in Matt 23 tells the multitudes and to his disciples to obey those who are seated on the chair of Moses, however, do not do as they do, as they are hypocrites. This is a clear example of the authority given to the Chair of Peter, as can be seen throughout Matthew’s gospel. This is not about the person, but about the authority which is given through Jesus Christ. The chair of Moses is where the Catholic Church derives its teaching on the Chair of Peter, particularly in this case, when speaking ex-cathedra (from the chair). Here scripture shows that whoever sat on the Chair of Moses, whilst being a sinner, was able to speak with authority and should be obeyed. Although not explicitly stated, this gives weight to the infallibility claim. Would Jesus be telling them to obey something that was in error?
Donna
Donna, you have to be kidding. Your theology needs some serious work. Very serious work.
Jesus says that the Chair of Moses should be obeyed. Not Peter’s. They should obey the High Priest and the King because there is an OLD COVENANT that commands it. That old covenant has been completely nullified because of Jesus’ complete, and final, atonement for sin. We do not need an earthly priest or king, because we follow Jesus, our God, as both.
Matthew 23 is an ENORMOUS tirade against the Pharisees. Only an absolute fool would entertain a desire to be connected to them in any way. The Pharisees are under judgement. Why would you desire to be a pastor, according to Matthew 23? There will be no teachers - and yet, the Roman Catholic Church decrees on behalf of God to the people of God. God’s people have the Holy Spirit, they are capable of following God without the decrees of the Papacy.
Infallibility is the icing on the cake. Jesus says obey these crappy, sinful rulers because it is commanded in the Old Testament Scriptures, and rants about them for quite a chunk of the chapter. Yes, he is commanding them to follow a useless sinful leader on earth. Romans says the exact same thing - Obey the laws and authorities, so that you might live in peace. Was Israel wrong to follow the sinful David and Solomon? Was Israel wrong to follow Moses? These were sinful leaders, appointed over Israel by God. Read your Bible, you shouldn’t need the Council of Trent decrees to help you as you go!
Matthew in general is a book written to the Jews, a bunch of hypocrits without a genuine relationship with God. It is written in such a way that utterly disdains the legalism and heartless nature of Judaism. I get the impression from Matthew, more than any other Gospel, that Jesus was a REALLY angry man at times, who was really frustrated at the failure of Israel to live humble, godly lives.
What are you referring to in particular? If you’re talking about Christ dying “once for all”, then we’ve been over this about twenty-three times - the sacrifice of the Mass does not occur over and over again, but is a re-presentation of the same sacrifice at Calvary.
This is actually an incorrect determination of Roman Catholic doctrine. The Council of Trent said quite specifically that anyone who claims that the bread and wine during Communion is not the actual blood and body of Jesus is anathema. Say what you like, this is saying that “you are going to hell because you don’t believe we are correct”. The embarrassment of trying to claim this over 1000 years after the original Lord’s Supper should give a general idea of the gravity of the doctrine - very little.
The Roman Catholic Church needs to better educate its parishoners on what it’s doctrines are!
This is actually an incorrect determination of Roman Catholic doctrine. The Council of Trent said quite specifically that anyone who claims that the bread and wine during Communion is not the actual blood and body of Jesus is anathema. Say what you like, this is saying that “you are going to hell because you don’t believe we are correct”. The embarrassment of trying to claim this over 1000 years after the original Lord’s Supper should give a general idea of the gravity of the doctrine - very little.
The Roman Catholic Church needs to better educate its parishoners on what it’s doctrines are!
Hubris isn’t becoming at the best of times, but it is especially painful to observe when accompanied with ignorance. Leigh, I said nothing whatsoever to deny that the bread and wine are the literal body and blood of Christ. I merely stated that the literal body and blood of Christ are the same sacrifice offered at Calvary made present to believers today at the Mass. Your comments are nothing more than a complete non-sequitur.
Jesus says, “ he that hears you hears me “ and Peter was the chief apostle and as the Fathers said at Chalcedon, “ Peter has spoken through Leo.”...Who preached the first gospel sermon on the birthday of tHe Church...who spoke at Jerualem, and who kafterwards kept silent?
Donna, you have to be kidding. Your theology needs some serious work. Very serious work.
No I am not kidding. Are you kidding!? Haven’t you ever read great exegetical works from biblical scholars showing the typology in the Old and New. This is not a new and fanciful approach. It’s 2000 years old Leigh. If you would like me to quote some of the Church fathers on how they see the chair of Peter being a direct link to the chair of Moses, I will be happy to do so.
Jesus says that the Chair of Moses should be obeyed. Not Peter’s. They should obey the High Priest and the King because there is an OLD COVENANT that commands it. That old covenant has been completely nullified because of Jesus’ complete, and final, atonement for sin. We do not need an earthly priest or king, because we follow Jesus, our God, as both.
Perhaps through your rage you missed the other chapters in Matthew’s gospel where Jesus gives the keys to Peter to bind and loose. Again we see the parallel in the Old Testament where David is given the keys to bind and loose. The language is the same. I am also happy to go through a more detailed exegesis, however, it will not be appreciated and this thread will be dead horsed before you wink.
Matthew 23 is an ENORMOUS tirade against the Pharisees. Only an absolute fool would entertain a desire to be connected to them in any way. The Pharisees are under judgement. Why would you desire to be a pastor, according to Matthew 23? There will be no teachers - and yet, the Roman Catholic Church decrees on behalf of God to the people of God. God’s people have the Holy Spirit, they are capable of following God without the decrees of the Papacy.
The bible tells us to call no man a fool.
Perhaps your theology needs some serious work Leigh. “There will be no teachers...” So the church you attend has no teachers? The problem with your theology is that the Holy Spirit does not lie, and it would appear that over 30,000 protestant denominations all claiming the truth, are not really giving the Holy Spirit a good name.
Infallibility is the icing on the cake. Jesus says obey these crappy, sinful rulers because it is commanded in the Old Testament Scriptures, and rants about them for quite a chunk of the chapter. Yes, he is commanding them to follow a useless sinful leader on earth. Romans says the exact same thing - Obey the laws and authorities, so that you might live in peace. Was Israel wrong to follow the sinful David and Solomon? Was Israel wrong to follow Moses? These were sinful leaders, appointed over Israel by God. Read your Bible, you shouldn’t need the Council of Trent decrees to help you as you go!
Show me where I used the Council of Trent to explain the scriptures. That’s ignorance talking. The Council of Trent says nothing that contradicts scripture, or any other Council dating from the earliest times. Leigh, you will be pleased to know I do read my bible. You are too presumptuous.
I have been reminded several times that I am a visitor to this forum and thus should behave accordingly. Perhaps your tone could be fine tuned so that you fall in line with the standards required.
Leigh, my understanding of Matthew’s Gospel is that it was written soon after the destruction of the temple as an argument that the Jesus movement, rather than the pharisaic / rabbinic movement, was the legitimate heir of the Jewish tradition. This is why Jesus is the new (and better) Moses and the notion of his church - his movement - is given such prominence, while the Pharisees are so vilified.
Kindly,
Eric.
