Catholics on, Interpreting the Bible

[Fixation On God]

1. CANON I - If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord; or, that they are more, or less, than seven, to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony; or even that any one of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament; let him be anathema."
2. CANON IV - If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
3. CANON VIII - If any one saith, that by the said sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred through the act performed, but that faith alone in the divine promise suffices for the obtaining of grace; let him be anathema.

 

[fated]

The elephantine bridge stalled the slapping of the seas.

It is so, base obstructive to repeat such things in order to shut down dialog.

Is your Church the one presented in the Act of the Apostles? Can it then, call an effective council like the Council of Jerusalem?

I think that it is defective and I don't think that it can.

 

[fated]

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.

1. CANON I - If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord; or, that they are more, or less, than seven, to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony; or even that any one of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament; let him be anathema."
2. CANON IV - If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
3. CANON VIII - If any one saith, that by the said sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred through the act performed, but that faith alone in the divine promise suffices for the obtaining of grace; let him be anathema.

Amen and alleluia, I agree with all the official documentation and Scripture you can present but disagree with your interpretation of them.

 

[Philothei]

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.

If Papal apostloicity according to RC applies that verse is directly connected with the Pope. This is taugh spot to be in but it is the fact of the sequential logic to the docrine of papacy... unfortunately.

. So thus in the light of this that passage refers to all apostles including Peter. And it does makes the dinsticition for the role of the Apostles in society and witin themselves. Acts verses do not "disagree" with the passage mentioned as there is no where to grasp that it is referring to secular authority at all. So Peter had secular because of the Council of Jerusalem? how? In passage 15:13 (acts) James says "listen to me" are we only supposed to listen to him? But further where excaclty you see the secular authority in the council of Jerusalem... That would be helpful.

 

[Thekla]

It is so, base obstructive to repeat such things in order to shut down dialog.

Is your Church the one presented in the Act of the Apostles? Can it then, call an effective council like the Council of Jerusalem?

I think that it is defective and I don't think that it can.

But you haven't supported your assertions; how can I know what you mean by what you say ?

You seem to be saying "it is because I say it is"; thus, no discussion is possible.

 

[fated]

If Papal apostloicity according to RC applies that verse is directly connected with the Pope. This is taugh spot to be in but it is the fact of the sequential logic to the docrine of papacy... unfortunately.

. So thus in the light of this that passage refers to all apostles including Peter. And it does makes the dinsticition for the role of the Apostles in society and witin themselves. Acts verses do not "disagree" with the passage mentioned as there is no where to grasp that it is referring to secular authority at all. So Peter had secular because of the Council of Jerusalem? how? In passage 15:13 (acts) James says "listen to me" are we only supposed to listen to him? But further where excaclty you see the secular authority in the council of Jerusalem... That would be helpful.

Why is secular authority important to this discussion. It seems to be a charge against the Pope that he has or does have too much 'secular authority.' Which I won't claim from time to time is incorrect. But it is also beside the point. All bishops, priests, deacons, religious, and laity have a degree of secular authority accorded to their station. So, can we move past the secular argument, unless you actually will charge the Papacy with transgressing something?

Unless, you see the Church as secular in some way and the Pope's authority as being some sort of secular burden. We believe that the Church has the moral obligation to care for itself and its ministers as it is able. I don't think that that is outrageous.

I don't know why we need to get to the bottom of this, but fine we will, before we get to the point that the EO cannot be called to a council and be expected to implement the findings if it even comes to them.

 

[fated]

But you haven't supported your assertions; how can I know what you mean by what you say ?

You seem to be saying "it is because I say it is"; thus, no discussion is possible.

When was the last EO Council called? Do you ascribe to its documents? Does you think your bishop does, or is it common for EO bishops to ignore such things?

You're the EO person, you should know this stuff right? Or at least be able to find it? My experience is that in the EO church no one cares what the patriarchs say, and they certainly have no obligation, even as bishops, to carry out such directives.

 

[Thekla]

It seems the point is that the Pope's role includes a secular dimension; he is a head of state (and previous popes have led military campaigns). How does this secular role accord with Matthew 20:24-28 ?

 

[Thekla]

When was the last EO Council called? Do you ascribe to its documents? Does you think your bishop does, or is it common for EO bishops to ignore such things?

You're the EO person, you should know this stuff right? Or at least be able to find it? My experience is that in the EO church no one cares what the patriarchs say, and they certainly have no obligation, even as bishops, to carry out such directives.

Do you mean (as this is the US) SCOBA ?

Do you imagine that an EO Council has an "imperialistic" dimension ?

It seems you equate bureaucracy with spiritual truth.

 

[fated]

It seems the point is that the Pope's role includes a secular dimension; he is a head of state (and previous popes have led military campaigns). How does this secular role accord with Matthew 20:24-28 ?

I, personally, have some secular authority... and so does your bishop, in accord with their position. Why are you treating me as if I haven't answered this question?

You're charge is that he currently has too much, though he has very little. Or maybe you have too much? It seems to not be an absolute rule, right?

 

[fated]

Do you mean (as this is the US) SCOBA ?

Do you imagine that an EO Council has an "imperialistic" dimension ?

It seems you equate bureaucracy with spiritual truth.

If the EO is unable to reflect a type of united belief in a few absolute Truths, and agree when new questions come up, what the Truth is, that it is not the Bride of Christ.


Rather, you seem to be charging the RCC with imperialism.

You equate lack of authority and unity with Truth?

 

[Thekla]

I, personally, have some secular authority... and so does your bishop, in accord with their position. Why are you treating me as if I haven't answered this question?

You're charge is that he currently has too much, though he has very little. Or maybe you have too much? It seems to not be an absolute rule, right?

What does this have to do with the Matthean passage ?
What can my "secular authority" unilaterally effect ?

Does the Jerusalem Council exhibit a unilateral model of authority ?

 

[Thekla]

If the EO is unable to reflect a type of united belief in a few absolute Truths, and agree when new questions come up, what the Truth is, that it is not the Bride of Christ.


Rather, you seem to be charging the RCC with imperialism.

You equate lack of authority and unity with Truth?

What Truth do you mean ?
What variance is shown in theological or dogmatic issues ?

 

[Philothei]

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!

Why the council of Jerousalem sets a standard and what are these standards ? do the other councils your church accetpts do not constitute or ascribe to those standards? We accept them and they do give us ecclesiastical practice in our church and again the next council if any will be on dogmatic issues that we do not presently have already answered that for youu ....

 

[fated]

Does the Jerusalem Council exhibit a unilateral model of authority ?

Both of course (as a judge), and not really (as a judge), the same way Papal authority works.

 

[Philothei]

If the EO is unable to reflect a type of united belief in a few absolute Truths, and agree when new questions come up, what the Truth is, that it is not the

Bride of Christ.


Rather, you seem to be charging the RCC with imperialism.

You equate lack of authority and unity with Truth?

There is no connection between what you state and what you ask....Lack of authority according to who... To the councils that wer the authority? or the the mOdern type Papacy? you are confusing the two here..
Why would TRuth exists in the councils the accept while the church was not "united" under the Pope prior to schism...and call the EO that they do not have authority? did they then had authority? So you either going to accept the councils of that "mode of existance" for the Church prior to schism or not...

 

[2 King]

1. CANON I - If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord; or, that they are more, or less, than seven, to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony; or even that any one of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament; let him be anathema."
2. CANON IV - If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
3. CANON VIII - If any one saith, that by the said sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred through the act performed, but that faith alone in the divine promise suffices for the obtaining of grace; let him be anathema.

Pope Pius XI did not offer anything new. But he did reiterate the incorrect teaching in the Roman Catholic Church that our righteousness before God can be helped through our works. This is a false doctrine and is one of the main reasons at the Protestant Reformation happened. The excesses and false teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, particularly in the area of salvation, leads to why the Roman Catholic Church is not considered Christian. But Rather a religious movement.

 

[Thekla]

Both of course (as a judge), and not really (as a judge), the same way Papal authority works.

Could you describe what you mean ?

 

[prodromos]

If the EO is unable to reflect a type of united belief in a few absolute Truths, and agree when new questions come up, what the Truth is, that it is not the Bride of Christ.

Please do tell us, what new questions have come up in the Orthodox Church since the Schism? What are those few absolute Truths we don't have a united belief in?

You make these claims but you don't back them up.

John

 

[fated]

There is no connection between what you state and what you ask....Lack of authority according to who... To the councils that wer the authority? or the the mOdern type Papacy? you are confusing the two here..
Why would TRuth exists in the councils the accept while the church was not "united" under the Pope prior to schism...and call the EO that they do not have authority? did they then had authority? So you either going to accept the councils of that "mode of existance" for the Church prior to schism or not...

The schism does not limit the rest of the Church's capacity to have a council. Such councils will obviously move forward without the backward looking Church and protect other things that would be lost or clarify things that need clarification as necessary... just as there are ancient Church's that were unable to make even the early councils.

My answer was in regards to Thekla's question and I should edit it so that it shows what I was addressing. Why the emoticon, you must be getting angry. I'll admit I'm getting a bit frustrated myself, what with the lack of respect for authority among the EO and all. I've seen were it also frustrates the councils, as bishops just won't trust a council they didn't go to, which, as I point out earlier in this post, causes all sorts of trouble.

Perhaps its simply because if there is no judge, one cannot call a Scripture reflecting council... which is a philosophy which would ultimately accept the OO, but not the EO... It might also accept the Russian and Greek, but, many of the particular Churches must simply be dialoged with directly, and certainly one cannot count on the most of the EO, or the EO 'at large' so to speak, actually adhereing to any sort of Canonical unity.