Submission.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Jesus implied it when he said "what you bind on earth is is bound in heaven and what you unbind on earth is unbound in heaven" he also implied it when he said "when they hear you they hear me". There's also his words about sin "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained." So it is far from true to make the claim that's in the above post. Clearly Jesus did say something that points to saint Peter and his successors being infallible.

How do any of those sayings have anything to do with infallibility? Two of them have to do the authority to forgive sins, not to proclaim doctrine. And Luke 10:16 is about the relationship between the proclamation of the gospel and the authorized witness by Christ's official emissaries. There's simply nothing in here that supposes that St. Peter's successors in his office (as though such a thing was even conceived) will have infallible authority when they need it, or that communion with those successors defines the church.

 

[MoreCoffee]

How do any of those sayings have anything to do with infallibility?

It seems too obvious to need explicit explanation but here goes. What is done in heaven is done in truth and righteousness thus it is free of error and hence infallible. Since what is bound and unbound on earth is also bound and unbound in heaven the clear implication is that the earthly acts are error free and hence infallible. A similar comment applies to what the apostles (and their successors) say as being the saying of Christ; specifically, if Christ says it then it is true since he is the Truth and if what is said by the apostles is what Christ says then the apostolic sayings are true and hence error free and hence infallible. The saying about sin and its forgiveness or retention has the same implication because God judges in truth and the forgiveness and retention exercised by the apostles and their successors is by implication error free and hence infallible. Naturally these things are fenced around by the work of the Holy Spirit in the church and especially in the teaching of the church. That is why it is affirmed that what the church teaches is the teaching of Christ. It is also why the Catholic Church is so careful to explain when and where an exercise of this infallibility occurs.

Two of them have to do the authority to forgive sins, not to proclaim doctrine. And Luke 10:16 is about the relationship between the proclamation of the gospel and the authorized witness by Christ's official emissaries. There's simply nothing in here that supposes that St. Peter's successors in his office (as though such a thing was even conceived) will have infallible authority when they need it, or that communion with those successors defines the church.

I do not agree with the limitations the above quote places on the concepts of binding and unbinding nor on the related authority of the keys nor even on the matter that is explicitly about the forgiveness of sins in John chapter twenty.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

It seems too obvious to need explicit explanation but here goes.

YOUR "explanation" of what YOU see as possibly 'IMPLIED' by things missing or purely circular is... telling.

Yes, friend, in apologetics, the higher the claim the stronger the defense is mandated; in other words, the higher the bar - the higher the defense is needed. Statements are evaluated - including to the level claimed.

Yes, since a singular, unique, particular, individual denomination among us CLAIMS all these truly remarkable, extraordinary, egotistical, divisive, self-serving, self-glorifying things, yes - CLEAR verification from OUTSIDE itself is required. More than the denomination among us simply shouting (at the top of its lungs) "Cuz I say so!" And certainly more than "Cuz I'M insisting it's IMPLIED by PHANTOM words never stated!"

Have you studied any of the groups we'd probably both label "cults" on this point of submission, authority, self alone being the interpreter of Scripture, self alone being the arbiter of truth, self alone being the Voice of God so that God is mandated to agree with itself? Have you studied that? Because I suspect if you do, you'll see how problematic this is, how divisive it is, circular it is. Of course, the RCC is by no means a "cult" (we all agree) but there is something severely lacking in the apologetic you suggest - that a study of such would make clear.

And friend, the stakes here are high......


Some additional points....


1. Over and over and over again, in OT and NT, we are warned about teachers who teach falsehood. We are warned of false prophets, false teachers, wrong teachers. We are told to "test" them to see if what they are saying is TRUE. Never is the RC Denomination exclusively exempted from this; never are we told that if a teacher among us INSISTS that he/she/it self is wholly exempt from the issue of truth, that self is just infallible cuz self says self alone is, that when self alone speaks ERGO God is - then that ONE is thus exempted from the warning. Again, a study of the "cults" might prove helpful to you on this point?.


2. I suspect the TRUE TEACHER (person, church, denomination, sect among us) welcomes the light and comes into the light, welcoming if not insisting on accountability, welcoming evaluation via some objective, knowable rule outside and above and beyond that teacher, confident that God's Truth will prevail and insistent that truth is what matters rather than the ego, power, control and lordship of self.


3. I suspect the FALSE TEACHER (person, church, denomination, sect among us) fears the light and hides from the light, insisting that self is uniquely exempt from accountability and the whole issue of truth cuz self says self uniquely is. Such a teacher among us must built high, thick walls of egoism, self-centerness, to stress how entirely and uniquely SPECIAL self alone is, according to self, SO special as to have God-like POWER and LORDSHIP even to exempt self from all accountability. Insisting all OTHERS are fully and immediately accountable, just not self. Uniquely. Insists self. For self. See CCC 87, see "The Authority of the Church" by LDS Apostle/Prophet Bruce McConkie, etc.


4. This whole thread - framed in the so very ROMAN sense of dictatorship - seems quite antithetical to Scripture which tells us that that which would be great must be least of all and SERVANT of all (not DICTATOR), where we are told that we are NOT to "lord it over others like the Gentiles do" (yet the RCC here is the carbon copy of Roman-like POWER, obsessed with lording, controlling, all submitting to it itself as unto God Himself).



See post # 3.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I do not agree with the limitations the above quote places on the concepts of binding and unbinding nor on the related authority of the keys nor even on the matter that is explicitly about the forgiveness of sins in John chapter twenty.

What in the text indicates that binding and loosing, the keys, and especially the explicit matter of the forgiveness of sins indicates anything more than the ability to offer absolution and to excommunicate or, at best, clarify matters of ethics?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

What in the text indicates that binding and loosing, the keys, and especially the explicit matter of the forgiveness of sins indicates anything more than the ability to offer absolution and to excommunicate or, at best, clarify matters of ethics?

Yes. And of course, it says NOTHING about a singular, individual denomination (the RCC or any other). Christians are being directed to other CHRISTIANS for help in resolving the issue of ethics among them. It's saying NOTHING about any unmitigated, unaccountable, dictatorial, POWER and LORDSHIP of one individual denomination over all.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[concretecamper]

Yes. And of course, it says NOTHING about a singular, individual denomination (the RCC or any other). Christians are being directed to other CHRISTIANS for help in resolving the issue of ethics among them. It's saying NOTHING about any unmitigated, unaccountable, dictatorial, POWER and LORDSHIP of one individual denomination over all.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

Much of Matthew certainly is about Christ establishing a sinngular, visible, and authoritative Church. Once you accept this, we can move on and show you which Church that is.

See post 3

 

[concretecamper]

Mat 5:13 You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing anymore but to be cast out, and to be trodden on by men. 5:14 You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid. 5:15 Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house.
5:16 So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

The Church is visible

Mat 10:20 For it is not you that speak, but the spirit of your Father that speaketh in you.

So the Father is not infallible?

Mat 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And 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.

Binding and loosing requires a visible and infallible Church.

Mat 18:17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. 18:18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven

This demands infallibility and shows authority.

Matt 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Since Jesus is with His Church ALWAYS, it cannot err in faith and morals..



See post 3

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Church is visible

Denominations (including the RC one) are not.

People, however, are visible.

Now, what does 'visible' have to do with unmitigated, unaccountable dictatorship of a single, exclusive, particular, individual?

So the Father is not infallible?

Yes, but that doesn't make the RC Denomination infalllible (news flash: the RCC is NOT the First Person of the Trinity).

Mat 18:17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. 18:18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven

This demands infallibility and shows authority.

Nope. NOTHING there about infallible anything (much thus an individual, egotistical denomination).

Matt 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Since Jesus is with His Church ALWAYS, it cannot err in faith and morals..

Jesus never promised to be with any denomination..... No, to "be with" is not the same as "That one is infallible/unaccountable, Lord over all."

See post 3

Indeed.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Matthew

Says NOTHING about the singular, exclusive, particular, individual RC Denomination.

Says NOTHING about a teacher among us being infallible/unaccountable/Lord over all if the self same claims such for the self same exclusively.

Says NOTHING about some individual denomination being the dictator of believers

Says NOTHING about how there is a denomination to which all perpetually are to docilicly submit to as God Himself.

See post 3

Indeed!




Thank you


pax


- Josiah

 

[concretecamper]

Says NOTHING about the singular, exclusive, particular, individual RC Denomination.

Says NOTHING about a teacher among us being infallible/unaccountable/Lord over all if the self same claims such for the self same exclusively.

Says NOTHING about some individual denomination being the dictator of believers

Says NOTHING about how there is a denomination to which all perpetually are to docilicly submit to as God Himself.




Indeed!




Thank you


pax


- Josiah

Take a deep breath and get off the RCC kick for a second. My point is that Matthew in part is about the establishment of His Church. And that Church is Visible, One, and Authoritative, whoever that Church happens to be..........agree or disagree?

 

[MoreCoffee]

What in the text indicates that binding and loosing, the keys, and especially the explicit matter of the forgiveness of sins indicates anything more than the ability to offer absolution and to excommunicate or, at best, clarify matters of ethics?

It is not as if the keys and the binding and unbinding passages exhaust what Jesus had to say about apostolic authority or what he promised to the church. I assumed that we're all familiar with the new testament and at least have some familiarity with the old testament. But the passage in Mat 16 is clearly not about binding and unbinding church membership since it is about confessing the Lord Jesus Christ as messiah and Son of God which is clearly a doctrinal statement.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

My point is that Matthew in part is about the establishment of His Church.

Well, that's one SMALL aspect. But it's NOT - in any sense - about the establishment of any denomination (such as The Catholic Church), and it's NOT about any denomination having.... anything.

that Church is Visible, One, and Authoritative, whoever that Church happens to be..........agree or disagree?

I believe the church is one, holy, catholic communion of believers - but that no one person or denomination or sect or cult is the unaccountable Dictator or Lord over all; that no single denomination is the infallible/authoritarian/Lord of all - unaccountable, exempt from truth.

See post # 3.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[katerinah1947]

Finally, all of you, be of one mind, sympathetic, loving toward one another, compassionate, humble. Do not return evil for evil, or insult for insult; but, on the contrary, a blessing, because to this you were called, that you might inherit a blessing. 1 Peter 3:8-9

Can you be a Christian and refuse to submit to the presbyters (priests) in the church?

So I exhort the presbyters among you, as a fellow presbyter and witness to the sufferings of Christ and one who has a share in the glory to be revealed. Tend the flock of God in your midst, (overseeing) not by constraint but willingly, as God would have it, not for shameful profit but eagerly. Do not lord it over those assigned to you, but be examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd is revealed, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. 1 Peter 5:1-4

Likewise, you younger members, be subject to the presbyters. And all of you, clothe yourselves with humility in your dealings with one another, for: God opposes the proud but bestows favour on the humble. 1 Peter 5:5

Hi,
Absolutely you can and must resist or leave any church official in any church who is wrong. A priest taught hate. Jesus is not about that. I told him. Others left him. A priest did not believe what he did was real. I told him. He changed. A priest was a text-book Narcissist. I told the bishop. He was placed where he could to no harm. A minister did seances at Communion. The congregation listened to me, and left. A priest is told, his heart is special in God's World. He changed his ministry to working with everyone rather than being a business oreiented priest. A priest called me a heritic. He is not doing so well today. I showed him in his own Bible how the words he was objecting to are in there, in two places, and it is Jesus who spoke those words. This could go on and on, if I listened to all the others in the world, who have corrected deacons, priests, popes, ministers. Some of the time, we are to resist. Some of the time we are to aid. Some of the time what they say is orders to us. Do what you are called to do by God, not someone else's opinion of whether it is right or wrong.
Couid the Inquisiton, being in direct vilolation of Mark 9 38-42 ever have happened, if they understood that was there, and they did not. Could any errors in any church happen, if the tens, to the hundreds, to the thousands of parishioners, said what was wrong when it was wrong. Would not all the churches benifit, if where the priests and ministers were right, were also told by the congregation individually they were right. When did God say his church is not a community, when you are a preybyster. When?
Peter was chewed out by Paul. Peter changed. Popes have been chewed out my nuns, who were later canonized saints. It is not only permissibable to not listen to all those who are priests some of the time, it is you job some of the time, to not listen and fight them, with words, or not going. It is you job also in God, to do that.
I M hopefully H O
LOVE,
...Katie., .... .

 

[concretecamper]

I believe the church is one, holy, catholic communion of believers - but that no one person or denomination or sect or cult is the unaccountable Dictator or Lord over all; that no single denomination is the infallible/authoritarian/Lord of all - unaccountable, exempt from truth.

See post # 3.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

In you answer here....How would you define One? How would you define Holy? How would you define Catholic?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I believe the church is one, holy, catholic communion of believers - but that no one person or denomination or sect or cult is the unaccountable Dictator or Lord over all; that no single denomination is the infallible/authoritarian/Lord of all - unaccountable, exempt from truth.


See post # 3.

How would you define One?

I don't know with a capitol "o" but otherwise, it means single. I used it with a lower case "o" with that meaning.

How would you define Holy?

I'm not aware of any such word with a capitol "h" but otherwise, the word as I used it means to be set aside for a divine purpose and to be reckoned as sinless.

How would you define Catholic?

Catholic (big "C") refers to the unique, particular, individual, institutional, legal-political-economic association of congregations (denomination) with the legal incorporated moniker of Catholic Church. But I didn't capitolize it, so I used it as the adjective it primarily is. It means universal, all-embracing, whole. I meant the word - so I mean that the church is ALL of us: ALL Christians, across the centuries and the continents, which is why I can regard you as a part of His church, His body, His family, His oikos; it's why I can regard you as my full, unseparated, equal brother or sister. The adjective refers to people. A proper noun refers to the individual RC Denomination. I believe it exists, of course, but it is not the church of the creed or the Bible. Most Catholics, I've found, are not so deceptive as to capitolize these words in the creeds (although some radical, fundamentalist Catholics - and those who wish to deceive - at times do).


Back to the topic: See post # 3.




Thank you


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[stevenfrancis]

I think a thread to discuss authority might be helpful......

I agree that it would. I've scanned through this one now at length, and this is not it, as far as I can tell.

Of course, the RC Denomination, formed by Rome in the image of Rome, had the paradigm of Rome to guide it (there was no other paradigm - especially in the west).

You should know quite well, having apparently been a communing member of the Body of Christ, that the Catholic Church founded by Christ Jesus upon His Apostles in neither a "denomination" of the Christian faith, nor founded in the "image of Rome."

The prof (a non-religious man) STRESSED that Rome never "fell" but continued - and his primary example was the Roman Catholic Church. For me, a LOT fell into place -

An anti-Catholic man in the field of academia? Say it isn't so!!! ;-)

all my experiences in the RC Denomination and with fundamentalist Catholics. And this uber-obsession with POWER, Dictatorship....

I only converted to the faith 9 years ago, but in that nine years, and two leading up to it, spent in prayer and study, I found no grounding for this accusation at all. You are entitled to opinions, just like anyone else, but why attack your mother Church with such vehemence? It is not becoming of a Christian. I see much of this kind of talk around here. It's saddening.

this obsession in the RC Denomination with denying accountability and responsibility,

They have been slow in reparation, if you're speaking of the sex scandals of the 70's and 80's during the worlds slip into blind immorality, which we call the "sexual revolution". It's a fair allegation of mismanagement for a time. I'd say at this juncture, however, there is not an institution on the face of this earth that is doing more to protect it's children from a repeat of such awful behaviors. I know first hand as a minister in the Church what level of training and accountability one must rise to in order to even be allowed to perform ministry at all. As a Eucharistic minister, and a minister to the sick and homebound, I had to be fingerprinted, background checked.... I had to answer to the Bishop's staff regarding at 15 year old traffic violation, all before beginning ministry. My wife had to go through the same in order to sing in the choir!! We are on our second consecutive Pope who is cleaning house, and third to throw wide the shutters on the windows into the Church. But the Catholic Church, even being the Church begun by our Lord is still managed by humans, as Christ knew it would be. And humans are sinners. There is no perfection on earth until the Lord returns again to establish His new heaven and earth. But we do come very close in the moments when we are practicing the heavenly liturgy with the angels and saints, and the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

this uber-obsession with lording it over others.....

Hyperbole

it was a big part of why I left that denomination.

We'll still be here waiting for you in love with arms wide open. As Tom Bodett says......"We'll leave a light on for ya"

Over and over and over - OT and NT - God repeatedly warns us of false teachers.... to beware of false teachers..... to test all teachers. I think this at least implies that teachers CAN be wrong. And nowhere - nowhere - is the singular, individual, exclusive, particular, individual, current RC Denomination ever given a complete "pass" on accountability.

The only fair assessment of this would be a case by case analysis of a particular dogma, and then going through the history leading to the declaration. There are protections by the Holy Spirit in the teachings of faith and morals for the Church. It's true. Don't really know what you're after here.

Dictators.... false teachers...... must deny accountability/responsibility and must demand obedience/submission - sometimes as unto God Himself. It's a function of dictators. They must stress SELF.... they must insist how SPECIAL (almost divine) is SELF.

I just don't see this at all. Actually, almost a diametric opposite. Almost all Church teachings are aimed at humbling oneself. At focusing love on the other. God first, then neighbor. Very lastly......the self. We are dust. And to dust we shall return.

Blessings,

Steve

 

[Root of Jesse]

Hi,
Absolutely you can and must resist or leave any church official in any church who is wrong. A priest taught hate. Jesus is not about that. I told him. Others left him. A priest did not believe what he did was real. I told him. He changed. A priest was a text-book Narcissist. I told the bishop. He was placed where he could to no harm. A minister did seances at Communion. The congregation listened to me, and left. A priest is told, his heart is special in God's World. He changed his ministry to working with everyone rather than being a business oreiented priest. A priest called me a heritic. He is not doing so well today. I showed him in his own Bible how the words he was objecting to are in there, in two places, and it is Jesus who spoke those words. This could go on and on, if I listened to all the others in the world, who have corrected deacons, priests, popes, ministers. Some of the time, we are to resist. Some of the time we are to aid. Some of the time what they say is orders to us. Do what you are called to do by God, not someone else's opinion of whether it is right or wrong.
Couid the Inquisiton, being in direct vilolation of Mark 9 38-42 ever have happened, if they understood that was there, and they did not. Could any errors in any church happen, if the tens, to the hundreds, to the thousands of parishioners, said what was wrong when it was wrong. Would not all the churches benifit, if where the priests and ministers were right, were also told by the congregation individually they were right. When did God say his church is not a community, when you are a preybyster. When?
Peter was chewed out by Paul. Peter changed. Popes have been chewed out my nuns, who were later canonized saints. It is not only permissibable to not listen to all those who are priests some of the time, it is you job some of the time, to not listen and fight them, with words, or not going. It is you job also in God, to do that.
I M hopefully H O
LOVE,
...Katie., .... .

Did Paul ever tell anyone not to submit to Peter's authority? Was Peter telling others that they should act as he did?
Regarding authority, it is written that if your brother sins, you should go talk to him, if he persists, you should bring others to talk to him, and if he continues, to bring it to the Church. The Church is the authority, not any one man. While priests, bishops, cardinals, and popes can be wrong, the authority we're speaking of is regarding faith and morals, and we are to submit to The Church in these matters.
One other comment, I've seen some pretty poor priests, but never the degree that you're suggesting. I've turned priests in for gambling, for simony, for improper shepherding, I've left parishes where the pastor didn't seem quite right, but wow! I wonder where you are??? Maybe LA?

BTW, the Inquisition was not wrong. Some individuals did wrong in the name of the Inquisition. Also, there are thousands of Catholics who think we should ordain women, allow divorced and remarried people into communion and not be so harsh on birth control and abortion. Should the Church listen to them?

 

[concretecamper]

I meant the word - so I mean that the church is ALL of us: ALL Christians, across the centuries and the continents

Your church as described above does not fit the definition of One or Holy that you gave us.

I guess we are back to post #3

 

[Root of Jesse]

Well, that's one SMALL aspect. But it's NOT - in any sense - about the establishment of any denomination (such as The Catholic Church), and it's NOT about any denomination having.... anything.





I believe the church is one, holy, catholic communion of believers - but that no one person or denomination or sect or cult is the unaccountable Dictator or Lord over all; that no single denomination is the infallible/authoritarian/Lord of all - unaccountable, exempt from truth.

See post # 3.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

You know, you're right, Matthew doesn't say anything about one denomination. Or multiple denominations. He said Church. And there is only one.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You know, you're right, Matthew doesn't say anything about one denomination. Or multiple denominations. He said Church. And there is only one.

It's an important reason why I left the RC one. That and how that denomination demands docilic submission to it itself as God Himself, obsessed with the power it claims it itself uniquely has - rather than having the humility to see Catholics as Christians, submitting to and serving CHRIST - together.


To the issue: See post # 3.



Pax


- Josiah