if the pope dies

[Carson Weber]

Ray,

At the time of the Reformation, the intellectual formation of the clergy - in many places - was quite insufficient, and the nominalist philosophy that had crept into the educational institutions - and which was directly opposed to Christianity at its core - essentially corrupted the education of many clergy and laymen (e.g. Erasmus who was Semi-Pelagian). It was the Council of Trent that established seminaries and aimed to reform the Church, especially in this respect.

Your statement that "Martin Luther was enlightened to the Apostolic belief that all sinners are justified by faith" essentially proves my point. This has always been Catholic doctrine, and this possitive affirmation of Luther is wholly correct and Catholic. Louis Bouyet (a former Protestant theologian who converted to Catholicism) points this out well in his text The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, which was originally published in the 1950's (Scepter 2001). It is precisely the fact that Luther's positive affirmations are wholly Catholic that - when you study Luther - you erroneously believe the Church teaches contrary to what he affirmed in this regard. You are in error, as Luther was, in thinking the Church does not teach what she has always taught, beginning with the Apostles, notably St. Paul.

 

[Frogman]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Hi Dallas,

you know what I believe concerning Matt. 16.18.

Yes, I would say that I have a good idea of what you believe (though "the rock" may be one of two items on your list.. Jesus or Peter's confession - or even both; Catholic interpretation doesn't preclude Peter's confession, as the New Catechism teaches) concerning Matthew 16:18, though I believe that a thorough study of the Old Testament and Matthew's use of the Old Testament shows that Jesus Christ, the Davidic King (the Christos), is appointing his Prime Minister in the New Covenant Kingdom as Shebnah and Eliakim both held this office in Isaiah 22:20-22. The parallelism is pretty obvious.

Matthew shows that Christ is in the line of David and thereby has the authority to claim the throne of David in Jerusalem. Thus declaring himself King of Israel. I believe the foundation of the church is Christ. I believe he has and is building his church upon the same profession Peter provided. I do not believe Christ made Peter a Prime Minister. I believe the Holy Spirit is the Prime Minister. It is by the Holy Spirit that all who beleive make their profession.

BTW, I believe the buck stops with the Word of God.

And the Catholic Church would agree. Ultimately, dogma is the Church's infallible interpretation of Scripture, as Scripture holds Primacy in Catholic Theology due to its unique status as inspired and God-breathed. However, Scripture cannot be Scripture without a living Apostolic Tradition and an authoritative mouthpiece for Scripture was written in an authentic Apostolic Tradition as it itself points to this Tradition and necessitates an authoritative interpreter, for it cannot interpret itself. The Magisterium (Latin for "Teaching authority") of the New Covenant Church is the servant of the Word of God and has no place above or even beside it. It exists for the purpose of promulgating and preserving/guarding this Word.

Any time you make dogma of a man or group of people or speak as though God had need of a man or group of men to preserve his word, you cannot say in honesty that you beleive the buck stops with scripture. Really what you believe is that the word of the church is infallible. Really what you are saying is that you are satisfied with what ever a man says the word of God means. Tell me, would you accept everything that I or any Baptist church said as infallible, I don't even do that. Why do you accept what the church says about the Word of God? Have you ever found that you were in disagreement with a Papal Bull because of what you read in scripture? If so what did you do? Change your mind to what the Bull states or did you remain with the Word of God? You say it cannot interpret itself. This is true in and of itself it does not interpret itself in all cases. But it all has one author and he interprets it through the Holy Spirit that indwells us.
John 14

14  If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.
15  ¶If ye love me, keep my commandments.
16  And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17  Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
18  ¶I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

John 16

5  But now I go my way to him that sent me; and none of you asketh me, Whither goest thou?
6  But because I have said these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your heart.
7  ¶Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
8  And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

John 16

12  I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13  Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14  He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
15  All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

Note the promise here. Are you a believer? Of course you are. So why do I ask you this? Because the scripture speaks to me and to you and not to you and to me except by the Holy Spirit.

Note also: 1 John 2.27 [just in case you want to limit the words of Christ to the apostles, this apostle is not speaking only to the Pope in Rome is he?] Notice in vs. 28 John calls his audience 'little children' and not your eminence. The former is plural and the latter is singular.

27: But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

I would like to return the favor and suggest that you read Matt. 16 in the context of your belief to see if Christ built his church upon the rock of Peter or upon the rock of the confession of Peter

This is the best online exposition of this verse I have found on the Internet:

http://www.catholic-convert.com/Portals/57ad7180-c5e7-49f5-b282-c6475cdb7ee7/Documents/peter6.doc

Thanks, I have studied this and studied this and studied this. I don't think that Christ placed any portion of an office of mediator in the hands of Peter.

Are you familiar with the famous Protestant exegete Oscar Cullman?

"The Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between p tra [petra] and P tros; P tros = p tra. . . . The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable . . . for there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of 'thou art Rock' and 'on this rock I will build' shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first . It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected." (1)

1. Oscar Cullman, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1968 ), 6:98, 108.

Thanks for the citation. I am not a Protestant of any brand, so I do not know of him. I think he is in error also. Is it ok to remove this statement from its context and then claim no reference to Peter's profession of faith? I wouldn't think so. If we limit doctrine to single scripture apart from contextual reference we'd all be getting up early in the morning, going out before breakfast and hanging ourselves and doing it quickly.

I can not imagine, though many other denominations do teach it, that there are folks in heaven who are able to look down upon me, or that their focus on the Lamb of God can be interrupted by my prayers or needs or whatever.

Well, this is precisely the image of heaven that John the Seer presents in his Apocalypsis (Eng. Revelation).

If I have offended you let me know and I will apologize, when I do not understand a word I am not afraid to say I don't know what that means.

"And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Revelation 5)

Ok, you got me there. But this does not say that we are to pray to these saints does it? Still there is only one mediator between God and man and the Bible never commands our prayers to be to anyone but Him. In fact we are to ask all things in His name.

In John's heavenly vision (NB: on "the Lord's Day" {Rev. 1:10}, the Christian day of worship in the Early Church and still today) entails the presbyteroi in heaven offering the prayers of the holy ones (that's us, brother) before the throne of the Lamb. [/QB]

</font>[/QUOTE]I am not Seventh Day Adventist either. How do you get the above out of the following?

I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

Bro. Dallas

 

[Ray Berrian]

Frogman,

Thanks for your kind thoughts.

You said, 'How can the church so declare these people canonized saints? It is God that
justifies. Can the church, or any person search the heart and reins of
another?'

Ray is saying, 'I think the Roman system keeps making new saints so Catholics have one more mediator to pray to other than Jesus. [I Timothy 2:5] One would think that those who believe in this ecclesiastical system would ask one of their teenagers the simple meaning of 'one Mediator.'

While it is true that everyone who loves Jesus is a saint in the making, it is also clear from Scripture that we are not fully endowed with saintliness until we die and get our new spiritual body in Heaven, [II Cor. 5:1] or when He returns in the clouds, [I Thess. 4:17; II Thess. 5:23] In this latter verse Paul tells us that we are only made fully saints {the Greek word is 'at'} the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.'

Oh, and if you find time give me the Scripture that says that Christians are to pray to or through saints who have been bonified by Catholicism. As you well know, there is not one to be found in the Bible.

A brother in Christ,
Ray

 

[neal4christ]

Thessalonian,

You never answered my questions that you said you would get back to. I would like to have your insights, especially since you carried the discussion down this path. The whole discussion is on pages 4 and 5.

Please show me where I have made the assertion that none of it is necessary for salvation or that it seems that way. I look forward to your response.

As well, please explain your understanding of Romans 8:24, if you will. What is the hope if it is not what I said it was? And show where that hope is necessary for salvation prior to it rather than a natural outworking of it, please.

Also, could you please address why Paul speaks numerous times as though salvation is a completed event? I know that you can point out verses that appear to say one can lose his salvation, but what of the ones that seem to indicate the opposite. Any real explanation (both sides here) can't ignore half of the evidence.

And if you have time, please address the issue as to whether a person may be justified and not be saved. Is it possible?

In Christ,
Neal

 

[chargrove]

If the pope dies then he's dead. He's no different than any other human. Catholicism is a wash, man. Get with the program. If you can't see that it's chalked full of idolatry and extra-Scriptural teachings then you should start at ground zero and rebuild your belief system. Not trying to be a jerk. There is only one way to salvation, you can't work for it, Mary isn't worthy of prayer, the papacy is a fallacy, and all Christians are saints. Period. Paragraph.

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi chargrove,

I notice that you're from Ft. Worth. Very cool - I'm originally from San Antonio & graduated from Texas A&M.

Catholicism teaches that the pope is a sinful man, that idolatry is a sin, that Scripture has primacy in theology & doctrine because of its inspired nature, and that those who are "in Christ through grace" are saints - both here on earth and in heaven.