Ex Cathedra (and other matters)

DS,

I gotta disagree with you on one point. We are not free to dissent about the ordination of women according to Ordinatio Sacredotalis.

"......Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful....."

Also Ratzinger had the following to say:

CONCERNING THE TEACHING CONTAINED IN ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS RESPONSUM AD DUBIUM

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

October 28, 1995

Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.

Responsum: In the affirmative.

This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.

Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect

Tarcisio Bertone
Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli

I don't see how you think we are free to dissent on this topic??

LaRae

 

Your theology, and logic, is a little off here. First the promise to the disciples that the Holy Spirit would guide them and bring all things into remembrance (though applied by many well-meaning Christians to the Holy Spirit leading in their own lives) has to directly with the Holy Spirit bringing into remembrance the Words of Jesus, Scripture to be written down at a future date. The Holy Spirit would bring these things into their remebrance.

No where is Peter elevated to any position above the other Apostles. In fact he was rebuked by Paul for being in the wrong. Paul "withstood him to the face." The keys are simply the keys of knowledge, or the gospel, which every believer has. If the truth be known I have access to those keys more than the pope does because I have a greater understanding of the gospel than he does. If he understood the gospel, he would denounce the Catholic Church for what it is and leave it.

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." (Gal.1:8)

Acts 15 was not an "ecumenical" council. The Apostles gathered to clarify the matter concerning the Judaizers. These were false teachers who followed Paul wherever he went trying to assert that circumcision and the law were part of salvation. They were very much like the Catholic Church who maintain today that baptism and good works are part of salvation. The Apostles denounced this heresy, and made clear that salvation was by faith. They were to leave the Gentile beilievers alone, excepting for a few moral guidelines that they set forth.

Thus Papal infallibility is simply an invention of the Catholic Church, a mere pipedream. The Holy Spirit has never guided these wicked men in their unholy deeds during the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the persecution of Bible-believing Christians in every age since its inception.
DHK

 

You act like the Pope has to be a perfect man to be correct on doctrine. Surely you must agree that the Pope can sin! Even Catholics admit that. When Paul rebuked Peter he didn't do this to correct his doctrine but to correct his actions. Yes, the Pope sins - he goes to confession regularly.

 

You act like the Pope has to be a perfect man to be correct on doctrine. Surely you must agree that the Pope can sin! Even Catholics admit that. When Paul rebuked Peter he didn't do this to correct his doctrine but to correct his actions. Yes, the Pope sins - he goes to confession regularly.</font>[/QUOTE]A person's beliefs tend to have a significant effect on his or her actions. A person who knows what to do and what not to do ought to behave better than somebody who does not have as good a knowledge of right and wrong. If a person is infallible in regards to faith and morals, he ought to be near perfect in his actions since he's supposed to know better.

 

DHK --

You are so delusional it is not even funny. What history of the Church do you read anyway? I sure would love to the the writings of the Baptist Early Fathers of the Church. You happen to have a copy hanging around somewhere you could send me? Just be careful that the ink is dry when you stuff it into your envelope.

ALL BELIEVERS HAVE THE KEYS??

Like I said -- delusional.

If you would take the time to actually STUDY and READ the CONTEXT of Matthew 16: 18 - 19, you would see that the context of the keys is AUTHORITY.

Mt 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Jesus HIMSELF describes what is involved with the possession of the keys, for in the construct of the sentence, He first makes the promise:

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven (the kingdom of heaven is the EARTHLY CHURCH)

and then He goes on to describe the RESULTS of what having those keys means:

and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

In other words, "you will get the keys" and as a result "you will be able to bind and loose".

Now you tell me that YOU have the power to bind and loose. Tell me, my delusional friend, that you have the power to forgive sins as given to St. Peter and the apostles.

Yer hatred of the Catholic Church is making you a sloppy student of the Bible.

In disagreement -- big time

Brother Ed

 

I agree. Yet, it was a sinner who was an Apostle of Jesus - in fact they all were - they were all human and they all sinned. Strange isn't it? Jesus still loved them and asked these sinners to teach others about Him.

Think about it.

 

They haven't? When did things begin to change?

Can you show some evidence of this?

Can you explain how doctrine can't change yet it took a while to explain what the Trinity was? Do you think that defining something is the moment it is invented? If so then the Trinity is an invention according to your logic.

 

You seem pretty full of hatred yourself.

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and (1) believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and (2) does not come into judgment, but has (3) passed out of death into life. - John 5:24 NASB

Peter was given the privelge to preach the Gospel, those who believe the Gospel of Truth get into heaven, those who reject it don't, it's the key to get in through the door which is Christ.

Look up Pope Benedict IX on www.newadvent.org to see a fine example of the evils of the Catholic church.

 

I agree. Yet, it was a sinner who was an Apostle of Jesus - in fact they all were - they were all human and they all sinned. Strange isn't it? Jesus still loved them and asked these sinners to teach others about Him.

Think about it.</font>[/QUOTE]I never denied that they were sinners, I'm simply saying that I'd expect somebody who really is infallible to be nearly perfect.

 

As far as Baptist history is concerned, a good reference work is "A History of the Baptists," by Thomas Armitage. It is in two volumes, but also can be obtained on cd.
Your theological comprehension of ecclessiology is deplorable. It is no wonder that you cannot comprehend the meaning of the "keys," when you have no notion of the meaning of the "ekklesia."

"If you would take the time to actually STUDY and READ the CONTEXT of Matthew 16: 18 - 19, you would see that the context of the keys is AUTHORITY."
---You have concisely stated one of your biggest problems: Study and read the context!! Let's look at it:
Mt 16:18,19
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

This is the first mention of the word "church" or "ekklesia" in the New Testament, and it always has the meaning of "assembly." It is noteworthy to point out that it is consistent throughout Scripture that rock always refers to God or Christ, not to Peter. Christ was referring to Himself, not to Peter. Peter was but a small stone in the building of an assembly which would be a model for others to follow.

The second occurrence of the word church or "ekklesia" is in Matthew 18:

Mt 18:15-18
¶ Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16 But 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.
17 And 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.
18 Verily 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.

Notice in this passage the word church or assembly is treated as such. If you have ought against your brother go to him; take one or two witnesses; take to the church--that is the local assembly. Ekklesia always refers to a local assembly of believers. This passage is speaking of authority in the church and specifically of church discipline. If the person in question would not listen: first to the one who went to him, second to two or three church members, third to the entire church, then he was to be unto them as a heathen. That is they were not to have fellowship with that person; they were not to eat with him. He was to be "disfellowshipped," if you want to use that word. When the church members would come together to make such a decision, God would be with them (whether large or few). That is the true meaning of verse 20. And whatever decision they made, God would be with them in that decision. It would be done just as if it were done in Heaven. It would be an authoritative decision on the part of that local assembly. Mat.16:19 fits in agrees with this passage also.

Again, the keys simply refer to the key of knowledge, a term Jesus used in rebuking the scribes, lawyers and Pharisees. "Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered." (Luke 11:52). The key of knowledge was the key of understanding that these leaders were to give the people that they might find entrance into the kingdom of God. They failed in their duty, and made them "the children of Hell," even as they were. The Apostles had the gospel, once again the key to understanding the entrance into Heaven. This isn't anything mysterious or complicated. The keys are the gospel. Anyone who has a basic understanding of the gospel has the knowledge to open the doors of Heaven to the unsaved.

Read Scripture in its context. Understand what the Biblical definition of a "church" is. The Catholic "Organization" never was a church, and never will be.
DHK

 

True. But, mind you, the Pope is not an infallible man. He makes mistakes and he can even get doctrine confused and make mistakes if not making an infallible statment. He has to actually study something before he makes a statement that is 100 percent true! You and I both make infallible statements when we proclaim that Jesus is God or that the Trinity is true. We're not perfect but we know that these truths are 100 percent true.

 

True. But, mind you, the Pope is not an infallible man. He makes mistakes and he can even get doctrine confused and make mistakes if not making an infallible statment. He has to actually study something before he makes a statement that is 100 percent true! You and I both make infallible statements when we proclaim that Jesus is God or that the Trinity is true. We're not perfect but we know that these truths are 100 percent true.</font>[/QUOTE]Notice that he's only infallible when it's convenient. The Catholic church is supposed to have this oral tradition that is perfectly preserved orally. Now if it has already been passed down to him orally he shouldn't have to study it nor should we get priest having wierd variations in doctrine because they should have received this tradition orally. Instead what we see is when something isn't found in the Bible, it's called "tradition" in defense.

 

Jesus could have said you are Petros and on this petros (both masculine) had he being talking about Peter the second time he said rock. Gender of words differs between languages and the gender of a word does not necessarily reflect of the gender of a person called by that word. Spirit is female in Hebrew, yet I don't think that you believe the Holy Spirit is female but rather refered to as a "He" in the Bible. Petros refers to a small stone, petra refers to suggests something bigger like a rock shelf. And before any Catholic tries to claim that it reads differently in Aramaic, the Holy Spirit inspired New Testament is written in Greek, Greek is not the only language with different words for rock (English has "stone", Hebrew and Aramaic have their own variations) which though often used interchangeably tend to have variations in their precise meaning just as petros and petra do. As already mentioned, had Jesus really been refering to Peter all He had to say was petros a second time instead of saying petra and had He used the same word when he spoke it the Holy Spirit would have made certain that the same word was used in both places in the Greek.

 

Allow me to quote Steve Ray who, like me, is a Baptist convert to the Catholic Church:

"In the NT, the names Simon, Peter, or Cephas occur almost 200 times. The names of all the other disciples combined occur only about 130 times. In the NT lists of apostles, Peter is listed first. Matthew uses the word first (Mt 10:2) to "to single him out as the most prominent one of the twelve". He was the spokesman and authoritative voice of the apostles, as seen in the early chapters of Acts. Paul spent fifteen days in private with Peter before beginning his own apostolate (Gal 1:18)."
</font>[/QUOTE]Your argument is illogical. Does the number of times a name is used indicate its importance? Let's look as some examples:
1. The word "and" is used 23,872 times in the Bible; the word "the" 24,123; and the word "God," is used 4,447 times. Which word do you consider most important? Does frequency or number of times used in this case count?
2. What about Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea? Which one is spoken of more often in the New Testament? Does it matter? Which one is more important? Is either one more important in God's sight? No! Both are equal in God's sight. God is no respecter of persons.
3. When the Apostles argued among themselves who should be the greatest (as they often did), did Jesus at any time say that Peter should be the greater one? Absolutely not. In fact, quite the opposite; he upbraided them for the childish arguing, and set an example of humility for them in John 13 where he took a towel and washed each of their feet.
As far as being the spokesmen, he was just outspoken. That was his nature. Would you like to say that it was nature to deny the Lord also. The other Apostles didn't do that. It was John that took care of Mary. Each Apostle was considered equal in Christ's sake, except for Judas, for He knew that he was unsaved and would betray Him. Even then He gave him every opportunity to repent.
DHK

 

The Book of Romans was written by Paul to the believers in Rome in 58 A.D. If we take your date of Peter's death at 67 A.D., that hardly leaves enough room for him to be the bishop or hold any kind of so-called "petrine office" for "decades" at Rome. Paul mentioned in his greetings many people at Rome, but he never mentioned Peter. Surely, if Peter had been there he would have sent him greetings, just as he sent his greetings to Aquilla and Priscilla. Was he not just as important as they? The fact is that Peter was not in Rome. He may have been in Rome for his death, but even that can not be proven dogmatically. If it was the place of his death, he no doubt was hunted down by the Roman authorities and brought there as a criminal to die. There is no proof that was his place of residence, and no proof that he ever pastored a church there, much less was the Bishop. That is all a Catholic dream, a tradition with no historical basis in fact.
DHK

[ August 13, 2002, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

"The Catholic church is supposed to have this oral tradition that is perfectly preserved orally. Now if it has already been passed down to him orally he shouldn't have to study it nor should we get priest having wierd variations in doctrine because they should have received this tradition orally. Instead what we see is when something isn't found in the Bible, it's called "tradition" in defense."

Let's face it. The Bible didn't drop out of heaven leather bound and with the words of Jesus in red ink. In fact the early church had no Bible. The Bible didn't appear until the end of the fourth century AD. Jesus commisioned the Apostles to go and preach the Word not to go and write a book. It was the Church [Catholic] that determined the Canon of scripture. The writings selected to be included in the Canon [all 73 books ] were those that supported the oral teaching. This was in accord with scripture which calls the Church the pillar and foundation of truth [1 Tim 3:15]. Therefore if the scripture says the Church is the pilar and foundationof truth why do you contradict scripture?