Catholics on, Interpreting the Bible

[Philothei]

First, there are places in the world were the bishops and priests are still secular type leaders in addition to spiritual ones (teaching stuff like agriculture and digging wells and basic law).

Second, such a comparison in the contemporary Western world seems an inadequate charge against the Pontiff, as if he was currently transgressing the passage.

How does this justifies the role of the Pope though?

So, the scripture fails to be interpreted for what it is because of situational ethics? And BTW i did not "charge" that the Pope at all. I was asking not 'charging".... and defenately not transgressing.... Just wondering of the intepretation that the RC gives to this passage.

 

[fated]

Wow, there really seems to be some controversy caused by my Catholic interpretation of Scripture and reality. I hope nobody finds the Truth, or a singular Bible interpretation, offensive.

 

[Thekla]

Wow, there really seems to be some controversy caused by my Catholic interpretation of Scripture and reality. I hope nobody finds the Truth offensive.

But you have not yet provided scriptural support for the role of the Pope, and meanwhile you make unsubstantiated assertions about the EO.

 

[Fixation On God]

weren't Peter, James, and John favored?

 

[fated]

How does this justifies the role of the Pope though?

So, the scripture fails to be interpreted for what it is because of situational ethics? And BTW i did not "charge" that the Pope at all. I was asking not 'charging".... and defenately not transgressing.... Just wondering of the intepretation that the RC gives to this passage.

It took quite some time for Rome (the Papal states or whatever) to come to an agreement with the Secular government of Italy.

And I don't see that as 'justifying' the Papacy... that question, in particular, makes the case that you are, in fact, 'charging' the Pope with transgressing the Scripture in this area.

Support for the Papacy, as you must know at this point (18k posts!), can be found elsewhere.

 

[fated]

But you have not yet provided scriptural support for the role of the Pope, and meanwhile you make unsubstantiated assertions about the EO.

That isn't true. How can you have 11k posts and never read, even, a tract on the role of the Papacy.

Seeking a base level rehash seems absurd for people so experienced in apologetics.

Would you like me to find you a link to a tract, or would you like to Google one yourself... or maybe we'll just move on.

 

[Philothei]

I am asking you to support the papacy vis-a-vis that scripture passage that is all. I am not asking for supportng the Papacy in general....

 

[fated]

weren't Peter, James, and John favored?

Peter is a new name for which means rock.

John spent his time with Jesus mother and lived to an old age.

 

[Philothei]

That isn't true. How can you have 11k posts and never read, even, a tract on the role of the Papacy.

Seeking a base level rehash seems absurd for people so experienced in apologetics.

Would you like me to find you a link to a tract, or would you like to Google one yourself... or maybe we'll just move on.

it is funny how the tracts would talk more effecinetly than our discusson here? okay then I suppose....

 

[fated]

I am asking you to support the papacy vis-a-vis that scripture passage that is all. I am not asking for supportng the Papacy in general....

And I am saying that that passage is not necessarily contradictory to the Papacy, though it does not support it directly, but actually describes the role of priest, deacons, bishops, and yes, the Pope, in society. It also describes the nature of lay Christians in society. It does not, however, demand that no Christian have authority or that bishops won't disagree, or that one bishop won't be the ultimate judge on issues, otherwise it would contradict Acts, as I have shown, the Council of Jerusalem.

 

[Thekla]

That isn't true. How can you have 11k posts and never read, even, a tract on the role of the Papacy.

Seeking a base level rehash seems absurd for people so experienced in apologetics.

Would you like me to find you a link to a tract, or would you like to Google one yourself... or maybe we'll just move on.

The papacy needs a "tract" ? What about scripture, won't that do ?

 

[Fixation On God]

What of Matt. 20:26: "But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;"

 

[Philothei]

Thanks that was what I wanted to hear edit that is for Fated's answer

 

[fated]

it is funny how the tracts would talk more effecinetly than our discusson here? okay then I suppose....

I don't want to read EO tracts and rote arguments about how you disagree with a particular Scriptural interpretation. But if you want to make them, go on ahead. I just thought someone with the experience you have would be willing to address the underlying issues. Such as rampant discord in the several EO Churches, even sometimes in the areas of morality.

Peter and the Papacy

Really, I'm surprised that you're still interested. Haven't you had this discussion before at this point. If you are earnestly interested in learning about Catholicism, then I submit to assist you...

 

[Philothei]

What this has to do with the topic??

 

[Thekla]

I don't want to read EO tracts and rote arguments about how you disagree with a particular Scriptural interpretation. But if you want to make them, go on ahead. I just thought someone with the experience you have would be willing to address the underlying issues. Such as rampant discord in the several EO Churches, even sometimes in the areas of morality.

Peter and the Papacy

Really, I'm surprised that you're still interested. Haven't you had this discussion before at this point. If you are earnestly interested in learning about Catholicism, then I submit to assist you...

Actually, perhaps if you became more familiar with the EO, and our taxis as well as praxis, your statements would be more informed. You seem to view the EO as "RCminor" or "RCwannabees"; we're not.

 

[Fixation On God]

What about Reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and Pope Pius XI?!?!?

The doctrine of Salvation? It denies justification by faith alone and requires works done through the Roman Catholic sacramental system in order for a person to be justified before God. Justification, of course, is the legal declaration by God where he proclaims the sinner righteous in his sight. The Bible clearly teaches that this justification is by faith and denounces any addition of works to it.

Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one."

Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,"

Rom. 5:1, "therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,"

Rom. 5:9, "Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him."

Rom. 10:4, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes."

Rom. 11:6, "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."

Gal. 2:16, "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."

Gal. 2:21, I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.

Gal. 3:24, "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith."

salvationhaving also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise.

Eph. 2:8, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God."

Phil. 3:9, "and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith."
​

In spite of the obvious teaching of scripture, Roman Catholicism teaches to the contrary. Please note the proclamations of The Council of Trent, 1545 to 1563.

 

[fated]

Actually, perhaps if you became more familiar with the EO, and our taxis as well as praxis, your statements would be more informed. You seem to view the EO as "RCminor" or "RCwannabees"; we're not.

Not true.

 

[Thekla]

Not true.

The elephantine bridge stalled the slapping of the seas.

 

[fated]

What this has to do with the topic??

It is what you asked for. I already answered your other question. Then you ask me again.

To me, the interpretation you give calls on Matt 20:26 and then rejects the council of Jerusalem in Acts. That's how it is. Simply re quoting Matthew is inadequate. It is impossible, as usual for you to describe how your Church is the same as that described in Acts. It is impossible for your Church to have a Council of Jerusalem, as that Church presented in Acts could. Should I put this in my Signature while I'm going about this discussion so you attempt to discuss it rather than falling back on old stuff as soon as it rolls off the page!