Marian T. Horvat says: "Please Don't Call Protestants Christians"

concretecamper said:

It doesn't.

Good grief, right out of the protestant handbook.

Jerome dealt with this misunderstanding. I can't believe protestants still bring this up.

Jerome

"It is a difficulty that the Apostle against this command calls himself the teacher of the Gentiles; and that in monasteries in their common conversation, they call one another, Father. It is to be cleared thus. It is one thing to be father or master by nature, another by sufferance. Thus when we call any man our father, we do it to shew respect to his age, not as regarding him as the author of our being. We also call men `Master,’ from resemblance to a real master; and, not to use tedious repetition, as the One God and One Son, who are by nature, do not preclude us from calling others gods and sons by adoption, so the One Father and One Master, do not preclude us from speaking of other fathers and masters by an abuse of the terms"

Click to expand...

And then there is the title "Holy Father". Wonder if Jerome considered calling any bishop, even the lead bishop, "Holy Father", as he considered this question. Paul didn't use the phrase "Holy Father" to refer to himself or other men, so Jerome's consideration of Paul's usage won't answer this one.

If a person didn't know about any traditions men have developed over time (Peter being called "Holy Father" -- not very likely is it?) -- a person would think God was being referred to.

I thought it referred to God the first 2-3 times I heard it. I remember a feeling of uncertainty, wondering if I'd missed some wording, of the unexpected usage, over the radio, as a child, trying to figure out the meaning, and then...shock.

Shock.

By the way, Francis is a servant of Christ as best I can tell, and I rely on Francis at times to gain from his wonderful preaching in his homilies. He's a faithful servant, and effective bishop, and I love him.

Dale said:

As I've said before, I've never heard the words "Sola Scriptura" in a church.

Click to expand...

I agree, especially in a Catholic Church, for it is an unbiblical, man-made doctrine.

Is there a Latin phrase for "Whatever the Pope says?"

Click to expand...

Don't know, but here, Fr. John Trigilio, Jr will tell you is that the Latin word for chair is cathedra, hence, the church where the local bishop’s chair resides is called a cathedral.

"The Pope is a bishop, the bishop of Rome. His chair, cathedra, is a symbol of his authority. During the Roman Empire, Caesar sat on a chair and his officials, especially his governors, had similar chairs. Whenever the ruler sat on that chair, it was like a judge sitting on his chair behind the bench: this is official business. The chair later became a throne in Mediaeval times when kings and queens ruled Europe but the simple chair remained a powerful symbol nonetheless. Judges sat on a chair as did Governors. When the Governor sat in the chair, his decrees and decisions had the weight of Caesar behind them. When he stood up, he was a fellow citizen but when he sat in the official chair, his words had full authority.

The Christian church adopted this symbolism from the Roman culture and bishops had chairs upon which they sat when exercising their teaching (magisterial) or governing (hierarchical) authority. The Pope is not just the Bishop of Rome but Supreme Head and Pastor of the Universal Church.

Jesus entrusted supreme, full, immediate and universal authority to Saint Peter and his successors in Matthew 16:18-19 “thou art Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven 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.”

Obviously, Jesus did not literally hand Peter a set of keys but the symbolism of those keys speaks volumes. Since antiquity, kings had chancellors and prime ministers to whom they entrusted keys. Usually, there was a key to the King’s treasury where the gold was stored. Taxes were collected and the official kept the King’s gold under lock with a key only he held. The official had the authority to gather more gold (collect taxes) and to disperse some of the treasury (pay bills, reward allies, help the poor). Another key the same official held was to the prison where the King’s enemies would be kept. He could lock up criminals but he could also release them for clemency. Hence, the official had the power to lock and unlock; to bind and to loose.

Saint Peter was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven, not to an earthly treasure nor to an earthly prison, either. Instead, the unique Petrine ministry would be infallible teaching authority and supreme governing authority over the entire church.

The Pope enjoys the charism of extraordinary infallibility when he makes an EX CATHEDRA (from the chair) pronouncement on matters of faith and morals. So far, only two popes (of 266) have made such solemn definitions. Pope Pius IX in 1854 infallibly defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and Pope Pius XII in 1950 infallibly defined the dogma of the Assumption of Mary.

Popes also exercise infallibility when they canonize a saint and when they confirm any dogma being solemnly defined by an Ecumenical Council they convened and presided over.

Infallibility simply means free from error. It is not the same as inspiration, which was a divine gift of the Holy Spirit given to the sacred authors of Scripture. Infallibility does not mean the pope is perfect. He is not impeccable (incapable of sinning), either. It does mean that the Holy Spirit protects the Church by preventing him from formally teaching error on matters of faith and morals to the whole church. Infallibility protects the continuity of truth. Prudential judgments are not infallible, so the pope’s preference in the World Soccer Cup is his own opinion and nothing more."


Thank you,,, Fr.John Trigilio, Jr.


p.s. If that answer dosen't suffice, try Google translate.

Phil 1:21 said:

So your opinion is that I may be wrong when I say that what God says is essential is essential?

Click to expand...

First off, my opinion is of no matter. All I was asking if you would agree that it is fair to say that everything you post outside of quoting Scripture, are the words of a fallible person who has no authority whatsoever outside of that which you have vested in yourself? Yes or no?



Or, in other words, "Your interpretations" of scripture are your own personal, fallible, non-authoritative opinion......... the word of Phil 1:21, as it were, and is subject to error? Yes or No?

Well, I'm either right or God is a liar.

Click to expand...

God is never a liar, but do you consider yourself infallible? Yes or No?

Take your pick.

Click to expand...

Easy answer!

Or better yet... [/quote]


What makes you think I haven't?

Click to expand...

Fidelibus said:

I agree, especially in a Catholic Church, for it is an unbiblical, man-made doctrine.




Don't know, but here, Fr. John Trigilio, Jr will tell you is that the Latin word for chair is cathedra, hence, the church where the local bishop’s chair resides is called a cathedral.

"The Pope is a bishop, the bishop of Rome. His chair, cathedra, is a symbol of his authority. During the Roman Empire, Caesar sat on a chair and his officials, especially his governors, had similar chairs. Whenever the ruler sat on that chair, it was like a judge sitting on his chair behind the bench: this is official business. The chair later became a throne in Mediaeval times when kings and queens ruled Europe but the simple chair remained a powerful symbol nonetheless. Judges sat on a chair as did Governors. When the Governor sat in the chair, his decrees and decisions had the weight of Caesar behind them. When he stood up, he was a fellow citizen but when he sat in the official chair, his words had full authority.

The Christian church adopted this symbolism from the Roman culture and bishops had chairs upon which they sat when exercising their teaching (magisterial) or governing (hierarchical) authority. The Pope is not just the Bishop of Rome but Supreme Head and Pastor of the Universal Church.

Jesus entrusted supreme, full, immediate and universal authority to Saint Peter and his successors in Matthew 16:18-19 “thou art Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven 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.”

Obviously, Jesus did not literally hand Peter a set of keys but the symbolism of those keys speaks volumes. Since antiquity, kings had chancellors and prime ministers to whom they entrusted keys. Usually, there was a key to the King’s treasury where the gold was stored. Taxes were collected and the official kept the King’s gold under lock with a key only he held. The official had the authority to gather more gold (collect taxes) and to disperse some of the treasury (pay bills, reward allies, help the poor). Another key the same official held was to the prison where the King’s enemies would be kept. He could lock up criminals but he could also release them for clemency. Hence, the official had the power to lock and unlock; to bind and to loose.

Saint Peter was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven, not to an earthly treasure nor to an earthly prison, either. Instead, the unique Petrine ministry would be infallible teaching authority and supreme governing authority over the entire church.

The Pope enjoys the charism of extraordinary infallibility when he makes an EX CATHEDRA (from the chair) pronouncement on matters of faith and morals. So far, only two popes (of 266) have made such solemn definitions. Pope Pius IX in 1854 infallibly defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and Pope Pius XII in 1950 infallibly defined the dogma of the Assumption of Mary.

Popes also exercise infallibility when they canonize a saint and when they confirm any dogma being solemnly defined by an Ecumenical Council they convened and presided over.

Infallibility simply means free from error. It is not the same as inspiration, which was a divine gift of the Holy Spirit given to the sacred authors of Scripture. Infallibility does not mean the pope is perfect. He is not impeccable (incapable of sinning), either. It does mean that the Holy Spirit protects the Church by preventing him from formally teaching error on matters of faith and morals to the whole church. Infallibility protects the continuity of truth. Prudential judgments are not infallible, so the pope’s preference in the World Soccer Cup is his own opinion and nothing more."


Thank you,,, Fr.John Trigilio, Jr.


p.s. If that answer dosen't suffice, try Google translate.

Click to expand...

Ellicott's commentary aided me to better understand the meanings of the "keys", and here of "binding" and "loosing" --

(19) I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.--Two distinct trains of figurative thought are blended in the words that follow. (1.) The palace of a great king implied the presence of a chief officer, as treasurer or chamberlain, or to use the old Hebrew phrase, as "over the household." And of this, as in the case of Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah (Isaiah 22:22), the key of office, the key of the gates and of the treasure, was the recognised symbol. In the highest sense that key of the house of David belonged to Christ Himself as the King. It was He who opened and none could shut, who shut and none could open (Revelation 3:7). But that power was now delegated to the servant whose very name, as an Apostle, marked him out as his Lord's representative, and the after history of Peter's work, when through him God "opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles" (Acts 14:27; Acts 15:7), was the proof of his faithful discharge of the office thus assigned to him. (2.) With this there was another thought, which in the latter clause of the verse becomes the dominant one. The scribes of Israel were thought of as stewards of the treasures of divine wisdom (Matthew 13:52). When they were admitted to their office they received, as its symbol, the "key of knowledge" (Luke 11:52), which was to admit them to the treasure-chambers of the house of the interpreter, the Beth-Midrash of the Rabbis. For this work the Christ had been training His disciples, and Peter's confession had shown that the training had so far done its work. He was qualified to be a "scribe instructed unto the kingdom of heaven, and to bring forth out of its treasures things new and old" (Matthew 13:52); and now the "key" was given to him as the token of his admission to that office. It made him not a priest (that office lay altogether outside the range of the symbolism), but a teacher and interpreter. The words that follow as to "binding" and "loosing" were the formal confirmation in words of that symbolic act. For they, too, belong to the scribe's office and not the priest's, and express an entirely different thought from that of retaining and forgiving sins. That power was, it is true, afterwards bestowed on Peter and his brother-apostles (see Note on John 20:23), but it is not in question here. As interpreted by the language which was familiar to the Jews (see Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr.,on this verse), the words pointed primarily to legislative or interpretative functions, not to the judicial treatment of individual men. The school of Shammai, e.g., bound when it declared this or that act to be a transgression of the Sabbath law, or forbade divorce on any but the one ground of adultery; the school of Hillel loosed when it set men free from the obligations thus imposed. Here, too, the after-work of Peter was an illustration of the meaning of the words. When he resisted the attempt of the Judaisers to "put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples" (Acts 15:10), he was loosing what was also loosed in heaven. When he proclaimed, as in his Epistle, the eternal laws of righteousness, and holiness, and love, he was binding those laws on the conscience of Christendom. It must be remembered, lastly, that the power thus bestowed on him was conferred afterward (Matthew 18:18) on the whole company of the Apostles, or, more probably, on the whole body of the disciples in their collective unity, and there with an implied extension to partially judicial functions (see Note on Matthew 18:18). ...(continues, link below)
--
Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Halbhh said:

And then there is the title "Holy Father". Wonder if Jerome considered calling any bishop, even the lead bishop, "Holy Father", as he considered this question

Click to expand...

You are changing topics most likely because you cannot adequately provide a response to "father". If you admit that the typical protestant "father" argument is baseless and wrong, we can then address you Holy Father question....deal?

concretecamper said:

It doesn't.

Good grief, right out of the protestant handbook.

Jerome dealt with this misunderstanding. I can't believe protestants still bring this up.

Jerome

"It is a difficulty that the Apostle against this command calls himself the teacher of the Gentiles; and that in monasteries in their common conversation, they call one another, Father. It is to be cleared thus. It is one thing to be father or master by nature, another by sufferance. Thus when we call any man our father, we do it to shew respect to his age, not as regarding him as the author of our being. We also call men `Master,’ from resemblance to a real master; and, not to use tedious repetition, as the One God and One Son, who are by nature, do not preclude us from calling others gods and sons by adoption, so the One Father and One Master, do not preclude us from speaking of other fathers and masters by an abuse of the terms"

Click to expand...

So, a Catholic calls a priest “Father” because they are desiring to be respectful of his age?

How about “Holy Father”? What is the Biblical reasoning behind calling another, fallible, mortal human being “Holy Father”?

Obviously this logic falls far short when one looks at the actual reality of mere mortal men being addressed as such. Catholics who are far older than their current priest will still call him “Father” and all the pomp and circumstance surrounding the Pope has nothing at all in common with Jesus and His original disciples. (Including Peter).

Not to mention the very real delusions of grandeur so many Popes throughout history have so clearly had.

No, no matter how much dismissive eye rolling Catholic apologists make in regard to Matthew 23:9, I have yet to hear even one clear explanation as to why Catholics who address their religious leaders as such aren’t doing exactly what Jesus commanded His disciples (Including Peter) and also all other believers, not to do.

Fidelibus said:

Also, could you show in Scripture where it says the bible is sufficient as a sole rule of faith?

Click to expand...

I never said that the scriptures were the sole rule of faith, ... but they are the canonized source text for the faith which has been common to the entire history of the church.

I will respond to your other post shortly ...

I loved the guy who told me 'we never call our Padre Father'

amariselle said:

So, a Catholic calls a priest “Father” because they are desiring to be respectful of his age?

How about “Holy Father”? What is the Biblical reasoning behind calling another, fallible, mortal human being “Holy Father”?

Obviously this logic falls far short when one looks at the actual reality of mere mortal men being addressed as such. Catholics who are far older than their current priest will still call him “Father” and all the pomp and circumstance surrounding the Pope has nothing at all in common with Jesus and His original disciples. (Including Peter).

Not to mention the very real delusions of grandeur so many Popes throughout history have so clearly had.

No, no matter how much dismissive eye rolling Catholic apologists make in regard to Matthew 23:9, I have yet to hear even one clear explanation as to why Catholics who address their religious leaders as such aren’t doing exactly what Jesus commanded His disciples (Including Peter) and also all other believers, not to do.

Click to expand...

I bet you would even rebuke Paul. I'll follow the gospel examples rather than follies of men.

Phil 1:21 said:

What did God say was required for salvation? That is what is essential. No less, and certainly no more.

Click to expand...

Above is my statement with which you take issue. So if God isn’t a liar than you agree with my post. Easy-peasy.

Fidelibus said:

First off, my opinion is of no matter. All I was asking if you would agree that it is fair to say that everything you post outside of quoting Scripture, are the words of a fallible person who has no authority whatsoever outside of that which you have vested in yourself? Yes or no?



Or, in other words, "Your interpretations" of scripture are your own personal, fallible, non-authoritative opinion......... the word of Phil 1:21, as it were, and is subject to error? Yes or No?




God is never a liar, but do you consider yourself infallible? Yes or No?




Easy answer!

Click to expand...

I fear sometimes we can complicate the basics. Salvation is not a theology exam. We may not get it all correct, that is the journey, but our salvation is born of our turning to Christ.

Philip_B said:

I fear sometime we can complicate the basics.

Click to expand...

That why Christ gave us the Church. Obedience on our part is all that is needed. She teaches, dispenses grace thru the Sacraments, and teaches us to love God. Pretty amazing, God will save us, all we need to do is obey. Protestantism complicates matters by coming up with all different ways based on erring interpretation of His Word.

Philip_B said:

but our salvation is born of our turning to Christ.

Click to expand...

Christ and His Church are One...according to Acts that is.

concretecamper said:

Christ and His Church are One...according to Acts that is.

Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with that, but more with a definition of catholic church which excludes many who have turned to Christ, repented of their sins and renounced the devil and all his works. I think a catholic church needs to be catholic enough to include protestants.

Phil 1:21 said:

Above is my statement with which you take issue. So if God isn’t a liar than you agree with my post. Easy-peasy.

Click to expand...

Must not be that "easy-peasy" if you can't or won't answer my simple yes or no question.

God is never a liar, but do you consider yourself infallible? Yes or No?

Click to expand...

concretecamper said:

That why Christ gave us the Church. Obedience on our part is all that is needed. She teaches, dispenses grace thru the Sacraments, and teaches us to love God. Pretty amazing, God will save us, all we need to do is obey.

Click to expand...

Scripture shows Luke commending the Bereans ... "who daily checked the scriptures, ... to see if what Paul taught them aligned with the scriptures." Acts 17:11

And Jesus said that we should beware of false teachers (Matthew 7:15). As did His Apostles Peter, Paul, and John. We aren't to just accept what is taught to us. We are to check it out against scripture ... as did the Bereans ...

concretecamper said:

I bet you would even rebuke Paul.

Click to expand...

Hardly. Paul never sought or accepted the honors and praises of men as Popes have done.

concretecamper said:

I'll follow the gospel examples rather than follies of men.

Click to expand...

As will I, which is precisely why I reject the papacy.

A_Thinker said:

I never said that the scriptures were the sole rule of faith,

Click to expand...

It is good to know that you agree, that the true "rule of faith".......as expressed in the Bible itself.....is Scripture plus Apostolic Tradition.

but they are the canonized source text for the faith which has been common to the entire history of the church.

Click to expand...

And your definition of "Church history" and the history of this "canonized source" is? Dates please?

A_Thinker said:

When you look at the scriptures, you just see a very few essentials for one's salvation.

Click to expand...

Fidelibus said:

Say's who?

Click to expand...

Says Jesus ... and His Apostles ...

A_Thinker said:

Primary among these are ...

FAITH - John 3:16, Romans 10:9-10, John 5:24, Acts 16:30

REPENTENCE - Acts 2:38, Luke 13:3

BAPTISM (of WATER or of SPIRIT ?) - Matthew 3:11, Mark 16:16, Acts 11:16

So these were what the early church was taught as essentials.

Click to expand...

Fidelibus said:

So, when you say "early church", how early are you talking? Pre-Reformation?

Click to expand...

New Testament (i.e. the first century AD)

Fidelibus said:

Would you also agree that it is fair to say that everything you posted here, outside of quoting Scripture, are the words of a fallible person who has no authority whatsoever outside of that which you have vested in yourself? in other words, not on the Word of God, but on your fallible, non-authoritative opinion......... the word of A_thinker, as it were, and is highly subject to error?

Click to expand...

I speak as one who has studied the scriptures for 40 years. And every other human on earth is just as fallible as I am. Exactly which other men/women should I place my trust in for my own relationship with God ?

Fidelibus said:

It is good to know that you agree, that the true "rule of faith".......as expressed in the Bible itself.....is Scripture plus Apostolic Tradition.

Click to expand...

You have mischaracterized my statement.

Fidelibus said:

And your definition of "Church history" and the history of this "canonized source" is? Dates please?

Click to expand...

Church history dates from Jesus' earthly ministry ... to today. So, from 33 AD or so.

The Church was using and validating the various writings which were later canonized into scripture since the first century AD. That canonization occurred in about the 3rd-4th century AD.

Fidelibus said:

Must not be that "easy-peasy" if you can't or won't answer my simple yes or no question.

Click to expand...

You’ll have to accept me not taking the bait of your straw man.