Who Has The Keys To The Kingdom Of God, Faith?greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread |
So, Faith, who holds the "keys" after the first key holders die?................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 24, 2004.rod.., please.I am not talking about the man-made seat of the papacy. They don't even practice the real way in which one succeeds the other--with the laying on of hands. Nope. Not ever close. Done correctly--the pope would pick his successor and lay hands on him before he died...
The original twelve disciples passed on the keys to every new convert and believer ever to come... baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit---as Jesus commanded them to do....
And so., as a disciple of Christ--I hold the keys too : )
The keys., by the way--are the knowledge of Christ...the keys to receiving eternal life, come in knowing Jesus as our Savior...
We have the keys and we pass them on when we lead others to this truth.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 24, 2004.You are absolutely right, faith. I never thought of that before.I am not talking about the man-made seat of the papacy. They don't even practice the real way in which one succeeds the other--with the laying on of hands. Nope. Not ever close. Done correctly--the pope would pick his successor and lay hands on him before he died...
One of those rare times I agree with you.
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 24, 2004......................................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 24, 2004Answers
So, Faith. Do you have the power to "bind and loose" here on earth, which will also be bound and loose in Heaven?........................................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 24, 2004.
I went across the street and asked the Catholics a similar question. I'd like to get to the bottom of things in regards to Faith's assertions.http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00COmE
..........................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 24, 2004.
Well rod.,Since Christ gave all the disciples the power to bind and loose.., and He instructed the disciples to pass on and teach all of what He taught to new believers--blessing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit--then of course--I say the same thing. All disciples of Christ have this power.
Just what do you think it means to bind and lose?
I think it has to do with having the keys to announce forgiveness in Christ. The keys to salvation are in Christ--he has the keys...and as His disciples we too have the keys--which is Christ.
We can profess to anyone who accepts Christ according to the gospel-- that they are forgiven in Him.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 24, 2004.
As of this thread, I'm a clean slate in regards to the meanings of "binding and loosing". I have been taught in the Catholic Tradition, but in order to fully understand its meanings, I'll start over again with a clear mind.....................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 24, 2004.
But the argument from Catholics might be that the Pope lays his hands on the Cardinals that one day would choose the future Pope.The Christian Yahwist
-- ElpidioGonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 24, 2004.
I wonder if you and I have the power to absolve sins. Well, I might not considering Faith's assessments of me.........................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 24, 2004.
You wouldn't have to wonder so much rod--if you knew the Scriptures.ONLY GOD CAN FORGIVE SIN.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 24, 2004.
Faith, I'm trying to understand Catholicism. My understanding is that Christ has paid for our sin. It is up to us to accept Him. Yes, God, through His only begotten Son, forgives sins of the world. But, before anyone shuts the door on priestly rites--and the Apostles'--we need to know why those rites are done.................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 24, 2004.
It's SIN rod--not sins....Jesus Christ died for that one sin we all incured at the time of the fall. Under the head of disobedience and rejection of God--which is SIN--we can find it manifested in sinful behavior.But to think that we need contiued forgiveness of all those *sins* in our life--unto salvation., is to misunderstand the truth as revealed in the Word of God.
Under that kind of relationship with God--tetering on the edge of sins all the time., one could never know if they are saved until that last minute when they make it through without having sinned one more time befiore their last confession....what kind of good new gospel is that?
We are saved *sinners*...not saved perfect creatures. We won't be perfect until that last day when we trade our mortal sinful nature/bodies for the perfect and incorruptable kind that Jesus will raise us in.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 24, 2004.
"We are saved *sinners*...not saved perfect creatures."So, what is the difference? It would then prove irrelevant that a person sins ; he may as well be "perfect". I believe the early Corinthians had the same concept about sin. They considered sins of the flesh to be irrelevant because it was the spirit that was to be saved in Heaven. They sinned.
...............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 24, 2004.
The difference is that we are not saved because we no longer sin--we are saved because we are forgiven the debt we owe God from the fall. The curse. We are saved from that....And no--no one thinks that this means we can go on sinning. Surely you have read what Paul says about that--right?
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 24, 2004.
Faith,In Matthew's gospel doesn't the word "disciples" usually mean the Apostles?
Assuming that:
1. The "keys" and "loosing and binding" are not just spreading the Good News and baptising
2. and that "disciples" in Matthew's Gospel meant apostles,
then didn't Jesus give the powers of the keys to Peter and the power of binding and loosing to the all the Apostles?
If that is true, where in Scripture does it say the Apostles then passed that power on to all believers?
Tell me where I'm wrong.
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 25, 2004.
AndyFaith, In Matthew's gospel doesn't the word "disciples" usually mean the Apostles?
Assuming that:
1. The "keys" and "loosing and binding" are not just spreading the Good News and baptising
2. and that "disciples" in Matthew's Gospel meant apostles,
then didn't Jesus give the powers of the keys to Peter and the power of binding and loosing to the all the Apostles?
I see the *keys* as being the same thing as the power to loose and bind. I see keys as being something used to *unlock* something...perhaps such as the meaning of the gospel. I see them as being given to those in authority--To have the authority to preach and reveal the truth...about what Jesus came and did and said.
The keys were given to all the apostles...And Christ said to the apostles to go and make disciples through preaching the gospel.
Jesus added that each person who believed the gospel was to be taught to obey everything that He had taught the original twelve: "teaching them [the disciples you make through the preaching of the gospel] to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" [Matt 28:20].
All of those who became Christ's disciples through the preaching of the original twelve were expected to obey everything Christ had commanded the twelve. And I think that in order for them to do all that the original twelve were commanded to do--then every disciple must have the same authority and power from Christ that the original twelve did.
Whatever commands and empowerment the apostles received from Christ were passed on to all who believed the gospel., and in turn they passed on this command to their converts--and so on down the present time.
When Christ gave Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven--He explained what this meant..,and it appears He meant all the apostles:
"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." Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ." Matt 16:19-20
This same promise is renewed in Matt 18:18 speaking to all of His apostles...
"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
And again in John 20:23...Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 25, 2004.
Not necessary....Tags were already closed : )
-- ("faith01@myway.com), September 25, 2004.
The keys were most certainly not given to all the apostles. That would have destroyed the very symbolism of the act, which was based upon social customs of the day which His listeners knew and understood. The master of a household entrusted the keys to one person only - the chief steward. That one man had full authority over the household, administrating every aspect of its operation during the physical absence of the master, not by his own authority but by the authority of the master delegated to him and symbolized by the keys. The chief steward would wear the keys on his shoulder as a symbol of his position as vicar of the master.Christ used this powerful analogy to indicate to those present that He was appointing Peter chief steward, to administrate His Church by His own authority when He became physically absent from them. They could not have understood it any other way. If Christ had told twelve men He was entrusting to them the keys to the kingdom, the analogy of the keys would have been destroyed. They would have been totally confused and would have had no idea what He was talking about, for they all knew that a household could have only one vicar of the master, only one keeper of the keys.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 25, 2004.
Faith said "All of those who became Christ's disciples through the preaching of the original twelve were expected to obey everything Christ had commanded the twelve. And I think that in order for them to do all that the original twelve were commanded to do--then every disciple must have the same authority and power from Christ that the original twelve did. "QUESTION: Where does Jesus give the same authority he gave the apostles to all believers?
Faith said "Whatever commands and empowerment the apostles received from Christ were passed on to all who believed the gospel., and in turn they passed on this command to their converts--and so on down the present time."
QUESTION: Where do you find that in scripture?
Faith said, "When Christ gave Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven- -He explained what this meant..,and it appears He meant all the apostles: '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."
QUESTION: Where does it "appear" that Christ meant ALL of the disciples, especially since scripture clearly demonstrates Christ is speaking directly to Peter?
Faith says: This same promise is renewed in Matt 18:18 speaking to all of His apostles... "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
And again in John 20:23...Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
QUESTION: From the scripture you provided Faith, we see Christ giving Peter the "keys to the kingdom" and the apostles the authority to "forgive and retain sins."
Is it your position that you have the power to "forgive and retain sins"?
Gail
-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), September 25, 2004.
Gail--Christ gave the keys to all the apostles.The keys were the power to bind and loose...which Christ reiterates in Matt 18., to all the apostles.
See it here again:
"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." Matt 16:19-20
Clearly--the keys are to bind and loose.
In Matt 18:18--Jesus says it again to His apostles...
"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
I think the keys to bind and loose is simply pointing to the forgiveness in Christ--which we as disciples are commanded to preach to all people throughout the earth.
I don't think anyone can forgive sin except God Himself---we are just given the keys to lead people to this forgiveness. And we are authorized to proclaim one is forgiven in Christ when they are Baptised. But it is still God who does the forgiving....
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 25, 2004.
Paul--From as far as I see in the Scriptures.., Peter as well as the other apostles--were quite unaware of Peter's supposed authority.
Peter appears to always exhort his equals in his epistles.
1 Peter 5:1
To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ's sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed....
Peter seems to declare himself a witness of the sufferings of Christ along with the other apostles who were eyewitnesses:
2 Peter 1:16
We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
The gathering of the apostles and elders in Jerusalem around A.D. 45- 50., was convened by Paul--not Peter as described in Acts 15.
After reading that--you can see that there was no church hierarchy, no delegates from afar. In fact--it looks like James was the one who took charge. Paul--who wrote far more of the New Testament--and whose ministry was obviously much broader than Peters'...publicly rebuked Peter for his error as seen in Galatians 2:11-14:
"When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?"
Peter was the head of the Church? I don't see it......
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 25, 2004.
Faith said: Peter was the head of the Church? I don't see it......What then do you make of this list from Dave Armstrong: 50 NEW TESTAMENT PROOFS FOR PETRINE PRIMACY AND THE PAPACY
-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), September 25, 2004.
Nope...all assumption...nothing concrete. Half the things listed I refute--and the rest really do not prove anything.Peter was a shrinking violet.....Paul had more say and even James was more feared.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 26, 2004.
Is this the way Paul should treat the pope or head of all the church?Is this the behavior that Peter as pope should display while charge in charge of the whole church? No way!!
"When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?" Galatians 2:11-14:
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 26, 2004.
Faith, I am really not interested in what you THINK, but what scripture CLEARLY STATES.Scripture clearly shows Jesus giving Peter the keys. The text stands ALONE.
Scripture shows Jesus breathing on the apostles and giving them the authority to retain and forgive sins. You can think whatever you'd like, but the fact remains that, according to scripture, this event occurred.
Since you believe that all believers have the keys and all believers have the authority to bind and loose, then why wouldn't the authority to forgive and retain sins pass on to all believers as well?
Gail
-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), September 26, 2004.
I couldn't afford to buy all of the books in the world. I want to read every thing, so I bought a dictionary and rearranged the words myself. I now have every book ever written.This also happens with Scriptures. Some will read into it what they wish for.
..................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 26, 2004.
You can ignore the fact that the Scriptures are clearly revealing that the *keys*...are the power to bind and loose--which was given to all the apostles. Not just Peter.Read Matt 18:18 for evidence of this fact. Jesus is addressing all of his apostles here:
Matt 18:15-15-20
"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
"Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."
It isn't just what I think, Gail. It is written!
Visit Matt 16;19 again for clarification as to just what is the keys????
Matt 16:13-20
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets." "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" [speaking to all the apostles] Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for *this* [truth] was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter [Petros=small stone, disciple], and on *this* rock[petra-large rock/foundation, truth] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
I will give *you* [who? just Peter?] 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." Then he warned *his disciples* not to tell anyone that he was the Christ."
Even the verse in Matt 16 can be questioned as to just who Christ meant when He said he was givings the keys--power to bind and loose..only to Peter. Maybe in this verse he seems to be addressing Peter. But we don't know how he was speaking--and since we clearly see that he says the same thing again in Matt 18--to all his disciples and not just Peter. I becomes obvious to the honest reader-- -
The Keys are to bind and loose.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 26, 2004.
As for the Galatians passage, Paul was rebuking Peter for his sinful actions. The Catholic Church does not claim that Popes would be without sin or even that everything they say or do would be infallible. In fact, over the centuries there have been people who were made Saints, in part because they rebuked the Pope's actions or teaching when he was incorrect. That passage proves nothing for your cause, and in fact lends credence to our Catholic belief. Paul thought it was so important to rebuke Peter, precisely because Peter was head of the Church.As for James, bishops do have authority, and he was Bishop of Jerusalem, so it only makes sense that he presided over that meeting. Furthermore, Peter had already stated his opinion in a mini- sermon at the Jerusalem Council, and James was simply agreeing with Peter, and even mentioned Peter. To me, it is quite clear that Peter was the first Pope.
-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), September 26, 2004.
It's a nice story Emily--but the truth is that the papacy is a man- made seat. Christ never instituted such a horrific seat as the papacy. Any real research on the horrors behind that seat will show you that it couldn't possibly of God!
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 26, 2004.
It couldn't possibly be of God - yet the Church over which the Pope presides demonstrates 2,000 years of doctrinal unity, which is precisely the stated will of God. While traditions which reject the Pope as the earthly head of Christ's Church demonstrate 450 years of constant dissention, fragmentation, and doctrinal confusion - which couldn't possibly be of God. The facts speak for themselves.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 26, 2004.
Paul--you cannot be serious!The Roman Catholic Church has divided and redivided all throughout history. It has never been in agreement. Perhaps what is the Catholic Church *part* left--agrees with itself...but surely you can't deny that your relgion was smack in the middle of the great schism of about A.D 1000--when the church divided into eastern and western orthodoxy----or again during the time of the Reformation.
All the protestant/Christian denominations are the divided Catholic Church---no? And even today--you have a division called the Tradition Catholic Church--and they reject everything since Vatican II.
Give me a break.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 26, 2004.
The Catholic Church did not "divide" in the 11th Century any more than it did in the 16th century. A group of people in the 11th Century LEFT the Church Christ founded, rejecting the authority of His personally appointed Vicar, and formed a new church in schism, the Orthodox Church. This act did not affect in any way the unity of the Church they left. In the 16th century another group of people LEFT the true Church founded by Christ for all men, rejecting not only the divinely appointed authority of that Church but also much of its divinely revealed truth, and formed a new church in schism and heresy, the Lutheran Church. Neither of these rebellions affected the unity of the True Church in any way. The Church they abandoned still teaches the fullness of Christian truth in complete unity, just as it did for 1,000 years before these events occurred.No, denominations are not a "divided Catholic Church". They are NON-Catholic churches, having separated themselves FROM the Church of Jesus Christ and the will of God. Therefore nothing they do can have any effect on the unity of the Church they are no longer part of. So-called "Traditionalist Catholics", in the extreme form, are schismatics, and therefore no more Catholic than anyone else who rejects the authority and teaching of God's Church. Therefore they likewise do not represent "a divided Church" but rather just one more NON-Catholic sect who have LEFT the True Church. Of course, the saddest thing here is that they don't even think they have left the Church. They still claim to be Catholic. But claiming to be Catholic and actually being Catholic are two entirely different matters, just as - I'm sure you will agree - claiming to be Christian and actually being Christian are two entirely different matters. I should note here that there are many "traditionalist" Catholics who are not extremists or schismatics, but who simply prefer to participate in Catholic forms of worship that were more prominent before Vatican II. They do so in full union with the Church, the Pope, and their local bishop; so again there is no question of division.
When people leave the true Church it does not leave the Church divided. It simply separates those individuals from the continuing unity of the Church, and from God's will for them.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 26, 2004.
Paul--it is just your take that what wound up being the Roman Catholic Church--is the Church Jesus started.However--that is the whole purpose for thew schism and reformation.
Not everyone agrees with what Rome did to the church.
So you can say that you are with the true church that Christ started-- but others say they reformed and went back to what the church should really look like. And so then--x Catholics can claim they are the true church as Jesus intended.
The point is that you cannot prove that you are the true church any more than any other religion can.
Personally--I think none are the true church because Christ did not establish a religion. His kingdom is *not* of this world.
That should tell you plenty.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 26, 2004.
January 1533, Henry VIII has a private marriage. This marks the defiance to the Catholic Church. Henry has now actually brought Christianity back to its roots by marrying another woman while still being married to his first wife. You call that getting back to the original "religion"? I would not agree, Faith.Ol' Henry just opens the door to further splintering leading to a distorted and tainted denomination still calling itself "Christianity".
.......................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 26, 2004.
Nice way to get back to the topic of the keys.I'd say whoever is in union with the guy who holds the "keys" that Christ gave to Peter has got to be with the true Church established by Christ.
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 26, 2004.
No good rod...,I remember my Early European Western Civilization History course in college. The Roman Catholic Church was knee deep in hypocrisy and dirty dealings....
It all just goes to prove my point though---no religion is the true church of Jesus Christ.No--not one.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 26, 2004.
Faith, did you answer this part of my question:"Since you believe that all believers have the keys and all believers have the authority to bind and loose, then why wouldn't the authority to forgive and retain sins pass on to all believers as well?"
If you answered that question, I can't find it.
***
Let me just cut to the chase and ask you whether Jesus breathed on the apostles and gave them power to retain and forgive sins, or not?
Gail
-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), September 26, 2004.
Corruption and ignorance is one thing, but not obeying the basic tenets of Christ's teaching is flat out blasphemy. Where in Scriptures does Ol' Henry get the idea that it is ok to marry another woman , while still being married to his previous wives, and axing those who stood in his doctrinal shame/shams?It is one thing to understand the break down of scholarship, education, and organization, but it is definately wrong to see the Scriptures and then to re-write those Scriptures to fulfill one's own agendas.
BTW, things were running relatively nicely under the Catholic "state" when first brought over to England. Society did not move into decay until Ol' Henry's tamperings in the Scriptures and Catholicism.
You should have taken a better college course in History, Faith.
..............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 26, 2004.
Faith says:"I remember my Early European Western Civilization History course in college. The Roman Catholic Church was knee deep in hypocrisy and dirty dealings...."
From my experience, most history professors at secular colleges are not very well trained when it comes to church history. Also, a lot of the history books used in college courses aren't well done when in the area of church history either.
-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), September 26, 2004.
I wonder how many here are familiar with the following book?A History Of The Protestant Rreformation In England and Ireland by William Cobbett( Written in 1824-1827), Revised by Francis Cardinal Gasquet. (TAN Publication)
I know; Faith is gonna make some comments about this author.
"3...2...1...Hit it! Faith....you're on.)
......................................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 26, 2004.
Also "Church History," a Protestant work, by Bruce Shelley is pretty reputable.One of the things, though, that is rarely mentioned about Protestant history is that the Reformation spawned wars all across Europe, big wars and little wars. Protestantism became a political football tossed about from country to country. Then came King Henry who seized that political football and from it, created his "own" kingdom.
Gail
-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), September 27, 2004.
I'll simply say it again:No religion on the face of this earth can make the claim that it is the true Body of Christ--N-O-N-E.
All any of this proves is that human nature is sinful beyond hope--- unless they can be found in Christ. The Kingdom of God is building and growing--with new believers being added daily--but not until Christ returns will He establish this Kingdom in the physical.....
The reformation recognized the false teachings in Roman Catholicism..., but surely., over the years--those same people made errors of their own.
The only way to the truth is through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ...with Holy Spirit as your guide--you will know the truth.
And it is a good idea to worship God in a church with other believers who have come to know the truth as well.
It's a conscience thing.
If you don't feel good practicing things in a church that don't ring true--then come out of her. That is what happened to me. I have found a biblical church that adheres to God's Holy revelation--without all the tradition and religion that I dislike.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 27, 2004.
Hi Faith,Whenever you say something I disagree with I try to point it out and refute it. So, whenever you say something I think rings true, I want to point that out to.
All any of this proves is that human nature is sinful
with Holy Spirit as your guide--you will know the truth
Two great points. The key is having the Holy Spirit as our guide in spite of our sinful nature.
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 27, 2004.
No religion on the face of this earth can make the claim that it is the true Body of Christ--N-O-N-E.(Then, there is no truth to be had. Those words are the seeds of confusion. I say; there has to be one true Body of Christ. He left us a Church.)
All any of this proves is that human nature is sinful beyond hope--- unless they can be found in Christ. The Kingdom of God is building and growing--with new believers being added daily--but not until Christ returns will He establish this Kingdom in the physical.....
(All any of this proves is that human nature has the desire to seek out the truth, the desire to seek out God, to worship Him, and to be with Him one day forever and ever. Yes, man is sinful, but the will is strong and the flesh is weak.)
The reformation recognized the false teachings in Roman Catholicism..., but surely., over the years--those same people made errors of their own.
(The reformation was a chain reaction of disobedience of the true teachings. The reformation allowed the mulitplied effect of distortions and false doctrines handed down to what we see today in the Protestant and cults calling themselves, "Christian".)
The only way to the truth is through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ...with Holy Spirit as your guide--you will know the truth.
(Your statement is an example of that reformation mutation in doctrine. Yes, we can have a personal relationship with Christ, but Christ teaches that it is a relationship which includes all believers in one "body" in Him, not a personal relationship.)
And it is a good idea to worship God in a church with other believers who have come to know the truth as well.
(You have admitted that your worship group does not agree on certain things. Where, then, is the truth in a personal relationship of diverse thinking, faith, and worship?)
It's a conscience thing.
(It's a faith and works thing.)
If you don't feel good practicing things in a church that don't ring true--then come out of her. That is what happened to me. I have found a biblical church that adheres to God's Holy revelation--without all the tradition and religion that I dislike.
(It isn't a gut feeling that should dominate one's faith. There is more to a faith system. There is your "plecebo" church doctrine, Faith. You keep referring to an "as you please" acceptance. It is much like selecting which verses to use to support one of those quirky doctrines.)
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 27, 2004.
It's a conscience thing.That's assuming we have a well formed conscience.
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 27, 2004.
God has made himself known to all--we are without excuse.We have a conscience and we should use it.
If someone is without conscience--then they are likely sick.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 27, 2004.
I know of quite a few who have a sick conscience, Faith.Do they count?
..................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 27, 2004.
"It's a conscience thing."faith, this might help you - from the CCC:
1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.
1784 The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart.
1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.
to emphasise: "...., assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching,....: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct."
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), September 28, 2004.
This is what God has revealed about our responsibilty--and the reason for our rejection of His truth:The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 28, 2004.
faiththis particular case seems to have little to do with conscience. the [objective] evidence suggests that its just plain old personal preference - said evidence being constant purposive interpretation of Scripture that bears little resemblance to Scripture.
for example, i do not have the keys, you do not have them - the only person that has them is the Pope.
Our Lord gave them to St Peter. only then did he turn to the disciples.
my sense is that you accept that you have to believe this or you should still be Catholic. this also explains the laughable interpretation of the Apocalypse which is so plainly referring in the main to the Roman Empire and its demise. the majority of scholars, of all religious groupings and none, plainly accept this now.
recap:-
"The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin TO PREFER THEIR OWN JUDGEMENT and TO REJECT AUTHORITATIVE TEACHINGS."
[they obviously missed this bit during the Vatican II re-write!!!]
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), September 28, 2004.
I remain steadfast--I must follow my God given conscience when it comes to the things of God.God has revealed that he gave the keys of His Kingdom to all of His disciples. That includes His disciples past, present and future.
Mine is no more an interpretation than is yours. Just because some self=proclaimed men made this interpretation for you--doesn't make it any less an interpretation.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 28, 2004.
Just a couple of quick points, Faith. BTW, I really enjoy having discussions with you when we can really dialogue without our usual sarcasms back-and-forth! It is very NICE!You said, "If you don't feel good practicing things in a church that don't ring true--then come out of her."
ANSWER: I tried that for many years. The problem for me is that I have to rely on the up-and-down ebbs-and-flows of my "feelings." Not to mention the unrest of having to determine if what the Preacher says is inline with what "I" believe scripture is saying. I honestly don't believe that's what the Lord intended that we must do to "find a church." I know you feel differently, but can't you at least see where I'm coming from here?
You also said, "That is what happened to me. I have found a biblical church that adheres to God's Holy revelation--without all the tradition and religion that I dislike." ANSWER: Not everyone feels that way about the traditions you dislike. To me, those traditions that you abhore, bring beauty and harmony to my walk of faith. They are like family jewels that have been passed down from generation to generation. Can you understand how someone, especially someone like myself, who has been whirled around within Protestantism for decades, could feel a great sense of "connectedness" through those "family heirlooms"?
I am not asking you to debate the merits of the "traditions," but am simply asking that you try to see things from a different point of view.
Gail
-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), September 28, 2004.
I have no problem with traditions as long as they are in sinc with the Scriptures.The traditions that I have a problem with--would be the ones that take away from God's truth.
For example--I think Holy Communion for little ones is special. I remember mine. I custom design Bridal Headpieces and veils--and so at Communion time--I find I get many orders for the little girls.., and I love to help out. I almost wish my church would do something like it. I don't think it hurts--even though it isn't biblical. Of course-- I would never asllow my daughter to participate in a Catholic Holy Communion because they start teaching about Transubstantiation., though I am positive that that part flies right over their heads. Even as a little girl myself--I always thought it was a symbolic thing.
But my point about tradition has to do with what jesus said about the tradition that was done and favored *instead* of God's Word.
I do miss some of the things that I used to think were Holy--that you won't see in my church--such as statues priests in robes and incense and candles being lit for prayers---etc. But I have found new traditions and things that mean more to me now. My children will grow up to remember our traditions and church things that we do that are biblically grounded.
But I do understand the pull and draw of such things as we find in the Catholic Church. I just can't forget that much of it is frowned upon by God because it is too paganized.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 28, 2004.
I appreciate your response, Faith! You are right in that traditions that nullify the word of God are odious to the Lord. Likewise, when traditions are done on and on with no understanding they become meaningless trivial "duties" that can lull one into a catatonic state. I see the danger there. I don't see the paganism that you see, but I do understand the danger of careless and wreckless repetition.I am heavily involved in the music ministry in my parish. We have enthusiastic worship! I have been able to introduce some great contemporary worship songs that are common and popular in many "Protestant" churches. They have gone over REALLY BIG! Now, I heading up the "children's mass" and am again introducing "power" songs for these kids. The kids are TURNED ON for Christ and I intend, with all my heart, to keep that fire burning.
I really believe that the Catholic mass, when celebrated with vigor and heart-felt love for the Lord, is the most powerful and beautiful experience of any anywhere. Of course, I know you disagree, BUT THAT'S OKAY! We're all different people with different needs. I am truly glad that you are fed where you are at. I never encourage my Protestant friends to leave their churches and join mine. "He places His people in His body as He sees fit." This is where He has placed me, and I am doing, finally, what I was called to do!
Gail
-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), September 28, 2004.
Faith"God has revealed that he gave the keys of His Kingdom to all of His disciples. That includes His disciples past, present and future."
that is not good enough.
re-read the Scriptures in St Matthew:
[18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [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 upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
note the use of "thee". even in the protestant KJV do you see Our Lord giving the keys to "thee", not "you". for the significance of this, see here: http://alt-usage- english.org/pronoun_paradigms.html. if he had given the keys to the disciples, he would have given them to "you".
moreover, nowhere in these 2 verses is Our Lord talking to anyone but St Peter. that is really very clear. and it means that he gave the keys to St Peter. the symbology has already been explained by the Deacon in his post above.
your interpretation is clearly nonsensical. you are re-writing the English language, amongst other things.
in short, you are living in a dream.
you do not have the keys, nor do I, nor does anyone apart from the Holy Father.
there might be a good reason why you are so intransigent on this point - but it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), September 29, 2004.
Ian..,Jesus says to thee [Peter]--that he is Petros.., a disciple-- small stone. And that He [Jesus] is going to build His church on a large foundation, Himself--the rock--Petras.
He is speaking with all the disciples present. Then He goes on to say that He is giving him the keys to bind and loose.
But we see in Matthew 18:18 that he reafirms that all the apostles have these keys:
"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
Jesus was speaking to all the disciples here. Why does this get ignored?
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 29, 2004.
Well I hope you are right, Gail.I have always said that God's true church is not caught up in any one religion--but is His body of believers---who are universal and spread out among all the different denominations.
In that way--then it really doesn't matter what church you call home-- so long as you have Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior : )
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 29, 2004.
Faith says:"I would never asllow my daughter to participate in a Catholic Holy Communion because they start teaching about Transubstantiation., though I am positive that that part flies right over their heads. Even as a little girl myself--I always thought it was a symbolic thing."
I am sure that the concept of transubstantiation would fly over most kids heads, but I think that they can understand the idea of the real presence. I remember when I received my first communion and there was no doubt that what I was receiving was the body and blood of Jesus. When I became a protestant the fact that Jesus is not present in communion seemed to be a real loss for me. When my priest asked me why I came back to the church, one of the reasons I gave him was the eucharist.
Just my 2 cents.
-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), September 29, 2004.
Faithwe are discussing **custody of the Keys** - the accepted sign of authority of the second in command, the first minister as it were.
let's stick to that shall we?!?!?!
now you show me where someone other than St Peter gets the keys.
i have shown you how the protestant's friend, the KJV, clearly shows that Our Lord is talking only to St Peter - "I will give to THEE", NOT "I will give to YOU". St Peter is to be the donee of the keys; no-one else.
are you saying that KJV is a mis-translation (just because it says something you personally choose not to believe!!!!!!!!!!!!).
as for this very silly wordplay (Peter/ Petros/ Petra), do you not accept that Our Lord spoke in Aramaic?!?!?! if you accept that, then Our Lord said to a man, who incidentally was called Simon: "...you are Cephas and upon this cephas I will build my Church.....". thereafter, said Simon became Cephas, and the cephas upon which the Church was to be built.
in subsequent Greek translation, do you not think it obvious that St Peter was not to be given a girl's name. St Petra.
but then you know all this already.
this is absolutely crucial stuff Faith and you just can't come up with anything plausible that supports your poit of view. it seems clear that you should, therefore, change yr point of view.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), September 29, 2004.
Well, James, you've saved me some typing. That's the very reason I want back in. That's the very thing that will keep be out. This is a funny world...............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 29, 2004.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaggggggggghhhhhhhhhead banging on brick wall hurts a lot....................
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), September 29, 2004.
"In that way--then it really doesn't matter what church you call home-- so long as you have Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior : )"when you accept finally that St Peter alone took the keys, you will soon realise that this statement, unfortunately, is simply not true.
see here: http://www.romancatholicism.org/infallible.html
that is why this is all so crucial.
we are called to unity, not disunity. with unity, there is oneness - ONE Holy Catholic and Apolostic Church.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), September 29, 2004.
Is Cephas really the same as "The Rock?" as in the head of Christ's church and the foundation of His ministry??The Bible always reveals that God is the Rock.., and Jesus is God, so also the Rock, as revealed in the New Testament.
Yet the Catholic Church ignores this and insists that Peter (Petros) is the Rock of the church.
The Rock (Petras) or foundation of Christ's church--is more likely the *proclamation* that Peter made, and not Peter himself.
Peter answered Jesus when Jesus asked, "who do you say that I am?" Peter replied, "You are the Christ--the Son of the living God."
Jesus basically responded back by pointing out that He (Jesus) says to Peter--"And you are Petros"..small pebble, or disciple, part of the foundation... But, "I, says Jesus, am going to build my church on this Petras (Larger Rock and foundation), which is the declaration that you (Petros) just made about Me (Jesus)., which is that I (Jesus) am the Christ!
I know that the Catholic Church will argue that Peter is called Cephas in Aramaic. But that is just because there is no other word for rock, whether big-small..or masculine-female.
Proof that Cephas does not mean anything close to what the Catholic Church declares--is in 1 Corinthians..the very verses they use to prove that Peter was called Cephas also disproves their claim that Peter was head of the Church.
"I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Appollos"; another, I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ."
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Corinthians 1: 10-13)
Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly--mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? For when one says, "I follow Paul"; and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men?
What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants through whom you came to believe--as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it--but God made it grow. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who makes things grow. The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.
By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid--which is Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 3:1-11)
Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a *fool* so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness"; and again, "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile." So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future--all are yours, and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God. (1 Corinthians 3:18-23)
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 29, 2004.
Gail said: I really believe that the Catholic mass, when celebrated with vigor and heart-felt love for the Lord, is the most powerful and beautiful experience of any anywhere.Gail, this is a great statement, although I appreciate many types of worship music, from organs and hymns, to folk/guitar music, to lively praise songs. What I love most are the beautiful Catholic songs that are straight from the Scripture -- please don't take those ones out in your mass's worship. However, that's all just aesthetics. What really matters is that it is the mass, with all the reverence and respect that is due to our great and loving God who is so kind as to Present His Body and Blood daily in mass!!
The Catholic mass is the most beautiful experience of my life. I never feel God's Presence more anywhere else than at mass, and that is when I feel the most peace. It is truly a contrast for me from the Protestant churches. I am excited all week for mass on Sunday, I savor the little time we have there, and I just sit in awe. God chooses to become physically Present for us as a wonderful gift!! I cannot imagine why some Catholics would not want to attend?!?! I think it may be due to the sad fact that there is often poor catechesis and some have ceased believing in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
And I agree rod and James, the gift of the Eucharist is so beautiful, and I will always cling to Jesus! Needless to say, I am very excited for Easter when I am received into the Church and can receive the Eucharist for the first time. Until then, I know how you feel rod. It is very difficult to sit there in the pew while others go to receive, but just knowing the Truth of God's Presence and visiting Eucharistic Adoration is enough to keep one in awe. rod, did you see the prayer I posted awhile back on the Catholic forum for those who can't receive Communion? It's helped me a lot to pray this while in the pew. Prayer for Those Not Receiving Communion.
I haven't posted a lot lately -- been so busy with college work. But I'm still reading what I can.
God bless,
-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), September 29, 2004.
Do you think people like Rod, Emily, should be allowed to partake of the eucharist if they have strengthend their faith in Jesus?I know Paul M. has tried to avoid this issue since he knows on a personal level what is happening to Catholics everywhere.
In the USA Catholic divorce rates are over 30%, so a a huge number of Catholics are becoming disenfranchised just like the ex-felons in Florida are not allowed to vote.
The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 29, 2004.
Ha! an "ex-felon" is no longer a felon. Is he still if he can't partake of voting?....................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 29, 2004.
Elpidio, no I do not believe that the Church should lower its standards. These are set by God. As much as I desire the Eucharist, I know it's not the right time and to take it now would be sin. The Church has set moral standards, and when people follow them, they may receive. Otherwise they may not, because Christ is holy, and we are to be his holy vessels. God calls for obedience.We already discussed this on the Catholic forum so see my answer there. Eucharist
-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), September 29, 2004.
Te dije, Elpidio. Ya se esta deshaciendo mi camino....just because one leaves the flock to find the lost sheep doesn't mean that the lost sheep is all that safe once found.Let's talk about something a little more cheerful.......how about that Jeanne?
..........................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 29, 2004.
So you no longer believe in grace, Emily?Since, as Paul said, we all have fallen short of God's grace.
Even Israelites had to partake of the passover (then the opposite was true, those who did not were excluded.)Ex: 12-13,Deut. 16
To me Emily, when we are believers, we follow a path or righteousness. But when we fall we are under God Yahweh's grace.
Right now, I do believe Rod is under God's grace.
Paul did not invent grace. Grace already existed in the Old testament. He just expanded its use to the gentiles.
Even a slave had to be freed after 7 years. All slaves and debts had to be freed and released on the jubilee year(Lev. 26:54). Not even God Yahweh put such a life term punishment on his people.
So why should the Catholic Church do so when others that have committed worse sins (considered unpardonable in Leviticus 18 (see v.- 220 220 and Exodus 21-23, Deut 17,19-22,27) be freed to partake like priests that have violated their vows of chastity....
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 details the old conditions for divorce:the man doesn't like her anymore. Then if her the second husband does the same, she can no longer marry the first husband again.
Jesus objected to sending away (divorcing) a woman for not liking her anymore. This is not clear in Mark (10:2-12)since women could not initiate a divorce in Israel. Though this happened in places like Egypt. Matthew (5:31-32)inserts unchastity (porneia), this in allusion to Deut. 24:1-4.
Paul included divorce for (I Cor. 7:10-11, 15-16,39).
The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 29, 2004.
Elpidio,No I agree with God's grace 100%. It is the center of our salvation, and our only hope whatsoever!!!
You said: To me Emily, when we are believers, we follow a path or righteousness. But when we fall we are under God Yahweh's grace.
Yes, provided that we repent. Receiving God's grace for forgiveness of sins is dependent on our repentance, turning away from sin. God dispenses grace in our daily lives, moving us and convicting us to repent. God loves us SO MUCH that He does not give in and accept our sin as ok, but loves us enough to tell us what's right.
Rod has shared that for some reason, he cannot receive communion and he trusts in God's Divine Mercy. I do not know his situation and cannot judge his actions. Only God knows his heart and I leave the judging on this matter to God.
But as for the Church, there are standards established by God. Receiving communion in a state when one should not rightly receive would only add to the sin. Believe me, this issue hits close to home because my mother cannot receive either. It pains her deeply, but she is doing what she believes God has shown her to be right. God knows our situations and our hearts. She has her convictions, rod I am sure has reasons, and only God can judge that. He is the only one who knows the whole of the situation, after all.
The Church cannot bend on anything that God has established. For such persons, this may be their cross to bear, and God will dispense His grace to them through other means. God shows both *justice* AND *mercy*; both are the essence of who God is and cannot be separated. This, Elpidio, is what grace means.
-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), September 29, 2004.
Oh, I agree, Emily. When I came into the Church I was amazed at the richness of its songs! But the music director was kind in a rut . . .if you know what I mean. She works a fulltime time job so it's real easy to get stuck, just because it's so time consuming to learn new songs. I have been able to pull songs out of the music issues and bring them to her attention. We've done a lot like that too!Does your parish use the Oregon Press? We do lots of John Michael Talbot, Dan Schutte, and one of my favorite artists is M.D. Ridge. She's awesome!
Love,
Gail
-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), September 29, 2004.
What could possibly be a reason for not being allowed to participate in the Lord's Supper for any true believer with a repentant heart?The only thing I can think of would have to be that the person is living in deliberate sin.
Otherwise--a hurting person who has sinned is the first person who should come to communion.
God's forgiveness is real...And you don't need self forgiveness to come before God.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 30, 2004.
This from a Protestant:"The only thing I can think of would have to be that the person is living in deliberate sin. "
What is the difference between accidental sin, casual sin, deliberate sin, and inevitable sin?
Anyway,
A person marries. A person divorces. A person remarries. A person must reconfigure the first marriage to "invalid". A person must reconfigure the second marriage as "valid". A person must reconciliate with the Church. It sounds workable on paper. It seems impossible in real life.
...................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 30, 2004.
Theological logic:When a marriage ends in divorce, it is only logical that the marriage was not joined by God. What God brings together let no man bring asunder. When one spouse dissolves a marriage vow, that spouse brings the marriage asunder. Did God join this man and this woman or did man do the deed before God? Adam and Eve didn't exactly have a choice as to who to marry. But, even they managed to stay joined. Of course, if we read the Judaic account, we learn about Adam's first wife--Lilith. She, too, fled from Adam. Adam took his second wife. Did God condone Adam's second marriage? Which account is viable? Which account is evident in our human weakness?
....................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 30, 2004.
rod--Did I miss something?
Are we talking about communion or not?
God forgives you of your sin if your are truly repentant.
Come to God with a sincere heart....He doesn't turn anyone away. This is what communion is all about.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 30, 2004.
We are talking about The Catholic Church and those who may not partake of Communion--The Holy Eucharist.............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 30, 2004.
"What could possibly be a reason for not being allowed to participate in the Lord's Supper for any true believer with a repentant heart? "To repent, in this case, would mean to leave the second marriage or to live in celibacy in that "marriage". To live in celibacy in any marriage would make that marriage a mockery. But, again, that second marriage is invalid in the eyes of Church, Scriptures, Believers, and (perhaps)God.
................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 30, 2004.
I don't follow you rod.Perhaps you are confused by church legalism or something?
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 30, 2004.
I'm not the one who is confused, Faith. You are the one who doesn't understand what is going on in this thread. Are you familiar with 2382-2386?......................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 30, 2004.
Let me put in into a hypothetical example and maybe you will see it more clearly. Suppose I came to your church, wanted to accept Christ as my savior, but also happened to be living with a woman who is not my wife. If I wanted to continue living with the woman (let's suppose I'm still married to my first wife, so marrying her is not an option) would I be admitted into full fellowship with your church? If you said no, I don't think that would be church legalism.I am not making judgements on rod's particular case, because real life can be messy and complicated and I don't know all the details and I think that there can be a middle ground here. However, I think my description above is how the church views divorce and remarriage issues in general.
rod, all I can say is that my prayers are with you in this rough path that you have to travel.
-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), September 30, 2004.
Thanks, James.I've been struggling with this problem for too many years. Obviously, this is a major stumbling block in my life. It has threatened my faith, but I've always managed to pull through. It is gonna be a major issue with me returning to the Church. Ha! sometimes it feels like I should become a member of Elpidio's new church. (That's just a burst of desperation, Elpidio.)
Anyway, let's talk about something less painful. I had a root canal done a few years ago.....
...............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 30, 2004.
I just had one myself, although it was not as torturous as I thought it was going to be.
-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), September 30, 2004.
Oh boy!!James...If you were guilty of all that--
Then you would not be considered worthy of the Lord's Supper..
You would be involved in deliberate sin. You couldn't possibly have a repentant heart and yet continue that lifestyle.
I would know that you are not really saved. A truly saved person could not live like that. You are called out of that life, and you are born again and made a new creation in Christ--when you truly receive Christ.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 30, 2004.
Faith. That is how that second marriage is viewed. That second marriage is considered living in a state of adultery..............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 30, 2004.
Using similar logic, you can understand why some bishops don't want to give communion to John Kerry.
-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), September 30, 2004.
FaithThere are separate events within vv 18 – 19 of St Matthew C.16. In chronological order, they are:
FIRST the man named Simon Bar-Jona is renamed Peter or Cephas
SECOND this Simon fellow is told that he will be the foundation for the Church, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail
THIRD this Simon fellow is also told that he will, at some point, be given the keys to Heaven.
FOURTH this Simon fellow is also given the power to loose and bind.
It is the THIRD of these 3 points that this thread is supposed to address. It is also the THIRD of these points that carries the most significance – because this is where Our Lord promises that St Peter will become Our Lord’s deputy on earth – or Vicar, the Vicar of Christ. This is the clear symbology.
You are arguing that we all have the keys.
My point is that, in the Bible, only St Peter is given the keys.
See the Deacon’s post of 25 Sept.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), September 30, 2004.
oops!Faith. That is how that second marriage is viewed. That second marriage is considered [to be as] living in a state of adultery because that is what it is--adultery.
Tell that to the long forgotten ex-wife and the current children of the second marriage.
Actually, my root canal didn't exactly hurt, but it did make me very aware of my life as it passed before me. It was a short parade, btw.
................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 30, 2004.
Faith said: Perhaps you are confused by church legalism or something?No, Faith. The ones who are confused are those who teach contrary to what Christ clearly laid out in the Bible concerning marriage, divorce, remarriage, etc. It is in following their *false teachings* that people are misled and brought into difficult situations. The Catholic Church is only upholding the standards set forth by Jesus regarding these issues.
See my thread: Is Divorce allowed in the NT?
-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), September 30, 2004.
I am not discussing the facts about what Jesus said in Scripture about marriage.I was refering to the true state of one's heart.
I said initially that there could be no reason why a true believer with a repentant heart could not come before God and participarte in communion.
Obviously someone who is married--but living with another person is not in the right state of a true repentant heart.
In fact--I do not think that someone who willfully disobeys Jesus has really received Him as Savior.
Salvation would empower this person to resist sin and want to do the right thing according to Jesus' teachings. Not according to the Roman Catholic rules and regulations and legalism--but according to Jesus.
I think your legalisms give people the false sense that things are workable. All rod needs to do is get an annulment. Blagh.....
What rod needs to do is get it right with Jesus.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 30, 2004.
Oh, rod thinks he is right with Jesus, but that isn't the issue. Is rod right with the Catholic Church? No...............................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 30, 2004.
I think I misunderstand the circumstances rod.Are you married to someone but living with someone else?
Or are you divorced and remarried?
Jesus says that adultery is cause for divorce. The Bible also tells us that if an unbelieving spouse chooses to leave you--you should not try and stop them. But at the same token--if they don't want to leave, you are obligated to the marriage to make it work.
I guess it really just depends on the situation and reason for divorce. I am not asking you to announce on this forum--your personal business. Just trying to help.
Perhaps the Catholic church's veiw is incorrect, rod. Hmm?
I do believe that in any event Jesus is willing to forgive whatever mistakes you made--if you have repented and are turning yourself towards Him. This is what communion is about. It is personal.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 01, 2004.
Do you actually believe that I would be married and living with a different woman? Interesting.........
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 01, 2004.
Read this. I will bring you up to speed.If the first link doesn't work, try this link instead.
http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00BTJ6
.............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 01, 2004.
Well I actually thought James had made a post about someone in general--no one in particular..,but then it seemed like he was talking about you with the way you responded. So I don't know anything but what I am reading here.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 01, 2004.
Okay rod.,Let me ask you this:
Was Gem a believer?
If not--and she left fool, he is free to remarry again.
Better yet--they married in the Catholic Church? Was fool a believer??
All these things make a difference according to Scripture.
The Catholic Church should never have married fool and Gem if they weren't believers.
Gem can come before God in repentance and he can receive forgiveness-- this is what communion is. It point to the cross.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 01, 2004.
God addresses Fool... For you rod---read and celebrate....To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches...
1 Cor 7:12-17
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 01, 2004.
"So, Faith, who holds the "keys" after the first key holders die?"No one...
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 01, 2004.
The power to "bind and loose" was "only" given to the Apostles.
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 01, 2004.
All disciples hold the keys to the Kingdom--we all have this power to bind and loose...,and we pass this on to all disciples as they come to the Lord.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 01, 2004.
Let me ask you this:Was Gem a believer?
This is difficult to answer. She would answer, "yes", but she did not belong to a church or attend, nor read Scriptures. She might have been baptized (I'm not sure). She partook of no Sacraments or Ordinances. Obviously, her faith was weak considering her lifestyle.
If not--and she left fool, he is free to remarry again.
Is that 100% fact?
Better yet--they married in the Catholic Church?
Fool was a fallen away Catholic. He tried to get married in the Catholic Church until things became complicated. Fool had lost all confidence in his Church. By that time, the Presbyterians were eager to marry the couple.
Was fool a believer??
Fool has always been a believer, but, like water, sometimes he was warm and sometimes cold. Yet, he still had faith.
All these things make a difference according to Scripture.
I have read them, too.
The Catholic Church should never have married fool and Gem if they weren't believers.
Fool should never have allowed himself to "fall in love" with Gem.
Gem can come before God in repentance and he can receive forgiveness-- this is what communion is. It point to the cross.
Gem has broken many hearts. Fool learned this too late in their relationship. He forgave her. He should have run away, too.
.....................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 01, 2004.
Oops..I meant that *Fool* can come before God with a repentant heart and be forgiven. Also rod...
Lioke Paul said in 1 Cor. 7:12-18....Fool cannot be bound by those circumstances. This means ihe is free to remarry.
"To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.
You can receive Holy Communion rod, in good conscience. Just pray about it to God.....maybe you should show these verses to your Church if they are the ones turning you away.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 01, 2004.
Kevinout of interest -- Faith has disengaged in this debate for obvious reasons -- how many "keyholders" do you think were there?
in the first instance:
St Peter - is my answer
everyone on the planet -- is Faith's answer
read St Matthew 16:19. et ***tibi*** dabo claves regni caelorum et quodcumque ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in caelis et quodcumque solveris super terram erit solutum in caelis
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 01, 2004.
Everyone on the planet??You think everyone on the planet is a disciple of Jesus?
The Scriptures say it Ian...
Speaking to all of His disciples, Jesus says:
Matt 18:18-20
"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. "Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."
How is that addressed only to Peter?
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 01, 2004.
the ****keys***, Faiththat's the point.
the ****keys****.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 01, 2004.
just who got the keys, Faith?in the entirety of the Bible, Faith, who was given the Keys to the Kingdom?
who?
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 01, 2004.
The keys--Ian.., are the power to bind and loose.See it here as Jesus explains...
Matt 16:19-20
"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." Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ."
I know you think Jesus gave these keys to just Peter--but I think that Matt 18:18 clears that up for us--don't you???
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 01, 2004.
Matt 18:18 emphasizes the fact the Peter alone holds the keys. In effect it says "I am giving all of you, as the bishops of my Church, a share in the power of binding and loosing. But only one can hold the final authority". The keys of course are a universal symbol of ultimate authority. In the house of a wealthy Jewish man, only the chief steward held the keys (in this case the literal keys). And the apostles all knew this fact very well, and were therefore able to immediately understand this analogy presented by Jesus. They were all to be stewards of the message, but there could be only one chief steward. Which is why we find the Apostles thereafter referred to as "Peter and his companions". (Mark 16:20; Luke 9:32) Why not "John and his companions?" Because John was not the chief steward. He did not hold the keys to the kingdom. His authority was subject to that of Peter.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 01, 2004.
I am sorry Paul..,But the apostles seem clearly unaware of any such power given to Peter. Matt. 18:18 is Jesus speaking to all of the disciples.
And as I showed in Matt 16...Jesus defines what the keys are. They are the power to bind and loose., and he gives this to all the disciples in Matt 18. One could even argue that Jesus was also addressing all the disciples in Matt. 16:19.
After Jesus spoke to Peter about *who does everyone say that I am?*-- remember that this question was first asked to all the disciples who were standing there. Peter volunteered an answer and Jesus said very good. Then he said that Peter was a small rock, or as I see it--a discipl--part of the foundation.
There is no reason to assume that Jesus didn't then go on to continue talking with all of his disciples when he said he would give them the power to bind and loose. Especially when we see it again in Matt 18 where we know he is addressing all of his disciples.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 02, 2004.
Faith,i have shown you that according to English translations, Our Lord was speaking solely to St Peter.
look in the KJV, "I will give to THEE": if he had been addressing more than one person, he would have used the plural "I will give to YOU".
look at other Scripture written in form of English, or any other language, that distinguishes between 2nd person singular and plural, and you will see.
in the Vulgate, we see "et TIBI dabo claves regni caelorum " NOT "vobis".
ONLY St Peter was given the Keys.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 02, 2004.
Even if you are right and Jesus was speaking only to Peter at the time--you cannot ignore Matt 18:18 because it's inconvenient to you.Jesus clearly said this to all the disciples as well.
My New King James Version does say you--just like my NIV.
How does *you* mean plural anyway?
I could be speaking to many and say *you* or I could be speaking to one person and say *you.*
Thee means *you*
I say to thee--meaning all of you...that thou--meaning each individual will have the keys to bind and loose.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 02, 2004.
Matt 18:18 makes no mention of the keys whatsoever. Jesus gave to Peter TWO pastoral gifts which he would need as head of the universal Church - Supreme authority (the keys) and infallibility (the power of binding and loosing). You effort to blend these two gifts into one is unwarranted, a mere private interpretation. When speaking to the apostles as a group, He makes no mention of the issue of supreme authority. That has already been settled. He only tells them that they too will teach the truth infallibly when they do under the authority of the keeper of the keys. His Church still teaches exactly the same thing today. The bishops of the Church teach infallibly when they do so in union with the chief bishop, the Vicar of Christ. This doctrinal truth has been present in the Church from the beginning. Doctrinal truth never changes.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 02, 2004.
Even if you are right and Jesus was speaking only to Peter at the time--you cannot ignore Matt 18:18 because it's inconvenient to you. Jesus clearly said this to all the disciples as well.My New King James Version does say you--just like my NIV.
How does *you* mean plural anyway?
I could be speaking to many and say *you* or I could be speaking to one person and say *you.*
Thee means *you*
I say to thee--meaning all of you...that thou--meaning each individual will have the keys to bind and loose.
Im sorry Faith, this is bad grammer. Thee doesnt mean " You". Thee and thou mean a singular entety is beign addressed.
No one can speak to a crowd and say " Thou all have", its bad grammer. High english, which used thee and thou, has a differential, as most languages except Modern english, between addresses given to groups of individuals and given to a singular. In this way, the KJV actulaly more accuratley reflects the Kione Greek, which ALSO has a spacific word for addresses to individuals as well as groups.
Thee doesnt mean " You" it means " You, personally". Ye and You, in the KJV and in the Kione Greek equivolents, means an address to a singular pwrson.
In Modern english, you can be a group of people or a singular person, btu this is NOT the case wihthe KJV, nor withhte Kione Greek, whereas it is ALSAYS USED TO ADDRESS ONLY A SINGULAR PERSON.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 02, 2004.
Thee doesnt mean " You" it means " You, personally". Ye and You, in the KJV and in the Kione Greek equivolents, means an address to a singular pwrson.Corection: This shodl read :
Thee doesnt mean " You" it means " You, personally". Ye and You, in the KJV and in the Kione Greek equivolents, means an address to a group of persons.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROVE@JUNO.COM), October 02, 2004.
Soi is the word used in Greek for Mathew 16:19, it means " You, personally", nd is a singular address, hence, in the KJV, it is translated as " Thee".Soi is a personal pronoun that always addresses a singular individual, and is alays second rather than collective persons.
Humin is used in Verse 28, and translated int eh KJV as "You", and is meant as a collective pronoun in Kione Greek, hence the KJV transates it, accuratley, as you.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 02, 2004.
I see that verse as saying that the keys are to bind and loose."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." Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ."
Semi-colons serve as to show parentheticals between the two sentences or thoughts. They say the same thing...
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 02, 2004.
Faith, this doesnt change the fac that, in High english, Thee and Thou are not words that mean the same thign as the Modern "You" and can thus address groups as well as singular intetites. They always universlaly refer to singular inteties.This is what I was addressing.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 02, 2004.
Zarove., I wasn't addressing what you are talking about. I was showing Paul why the Keys of the kingdom are to bind and loose.Though I will say that *thee* in this verse is more like "all of you"., though it could mean just one person as in Peter--if jesus was still addressing Peter. And the *thou* is saying more like *you yourselves*.
It's like Jesus was saying "I give "you" the keys to the kingdom--and each of "you" individually will have the power to bind and loose."
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 02, 2004.
Sorry Faith, thats imposisble. The grammer in BOTH the origional Kione Greek AND High english forbid this interpretation.19. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
It is clear formt he context that thee doesnt mean "All o you, in the group pf beelivers", but is addressed to Peter himself.
Most protestants dotn even try to deny this, but rather admit Jesus was addressign Peter. They merley claim that they where addressign him in his role as a Minister, which others also hold. However, the claim that the "Thee" in this sentence means " All of you" is patently absurd. It cannot be true since the rules of Grammer are clear. Thee is ALWAYS a singular intety or individual. It is NEVER a group of individuaLS.
Thee is not identical to the Modern word You. You, in high english, addressed a crowd or group, thee addressed single people.
Thee has never, ever, been used to address a group and thus the passage cannot be Jesus saying " I give all fo you". It said " I give thee", which means, he is addressing a single person, Peter.
Use standard protestant argumetns all you like, but please don make protestants look like fools by sayign the thee in this passge means " All of you in the community of beelivers" when its clar he is speakign to Peter, and abotu Peter.
You can claim that he is addressign Peter but hte principle is disributed to all Chruch Authorities, all Ministers, but you cannot say that the spacific Thee in the text means " All of you", it clearly i an address t Peter himself.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 02, 2004.
And Thou is the same as Thee.Thou is used if the Verb follows the Pronoun, Thee is sued if the Verb coems before the Pronoune.
However, Thee and Thou are both Universally used to address spacific, singular individuals or inteties, never to groups.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 02, 2004.
Whatever Jesus was saying to Peter--he was clearly saying to all the disciples when you see him say it again in Matt. 18:18.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 02, 2004.
Faith, your beign a case Against Proestantism.18. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Now, the Standard Catholi Interpretation is that this is where Jesus makes Peter the irst Pope.
The sandard Protestant veiw is that it is Peters proffesison of Faith that i the foundation of the Churhc, and the rock which is spoken of.
However, Catholics and Protestnats tend to agree that he was addressing Peter Spacificlaly and alone, NOT a congregation of beleivers.
This is why the KJV translated it "Thou Art Peter"... he was addressign PETER PERSONALLY.
In fact, he was NAMING PETER PETER!
Please learn the standard protestant position, before you begin tese sorts of talks, as not knowign them gives Catholcias fodder for provinmg how stupid Protestnats are, and gives them evidence of their claims that Protestnats distort scriptue to prevent them orm seeign the truth of the Catholic Faith.
If that is thy aim, then procceed with thy argumets, thou dost prove Catholisism right at every blow, but if thou wantest desire prove that the Catholic faith is in error, then do learn High english Grammer, and do also learn the Arguments used agaisnt Catholics, and do not insist upon such half concienved antics.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 02, 2004.
Sory Faith, got the wrogn verse. I misread it, though you where still in Chapter 16.The verse in queastion you mention is 18:18. not 16:18.
18. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
This is, indeed, speakign to a group and not a single individual.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 03, 2004.
"Please learn the standard protestant position..."is there such a thing as a "standard protestant position" amongst the 30,000 denominations?
i would say look for the Truth rather than consult the Protestant Handbook of Apologetics.
one set of keys, one donee, St Peter.
that must change things for you Faith. a great many bishops and priests and deacons - but only ONE Vicar, the Holy Father, the Pope.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 03, 2004.
Again Ian--ignore Matt.18:18 at your own peril.Jesus also warned us not to call anyone else Father., but our Father in heaven..and I think he was speaking specifically to Fathers' of religious institutions--not Dads.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 03, 2004.
Ian, we discussed this error before too...Their arent 30'000 Protestnat denomenations. Only about 5000...and on this one issue Faith is right in the plural used in Mathew 18:18
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 03, 2004.
Faiththe *****keys****
are we back to square-1?
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 03, 2004.
Zaroveindeed the plural is used but the keys have already been handed out by the time we reach St Matthew 18.
they have already been gven to St Peter.
Faith seems confused because she says that Our Lord gave the keys to ALL the disciples.
he gave them to St Peter alone in St Matthew 16.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 03, 2004.
Ian, as for the "30,000 denominations" thing, David referred us to this site by Eric Svendsen: 30,000 Protestant Denominations?. Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong, after examining this evidence, said that Svendsen was right, and that 33,000 is indeed a false claim: 33,000 Protestant Denominations? .These inflated numbers all refer back to this book:
David A. Barrett’s World Christian Encyclopedia: A Comparative Survey of Churches and Religions in the Modern World A.D. 1900—2000 (ed. David A. Barrett; New York: Oxford University Press, 1982)The way Barrett counted each "denomination" was by jurisdiction, so for example, he considered each Catholic diocese as a separate denomination. Now Catholics know this is false because we are all in communion and unity together under the same Pope.
Svendsen wrote (and Armstrong quoted),
Barrett identifies seven major ecclesiastical “blocs” under which these 22,190 distinct denominations fall (Barrett, 14- 15): (1) Roman Catholicism, which accounts for 223 denominations; (2) Protestant, which accounts for 8,196 denominations; (3) Orthodox, which accounts for 580 denominations; (4) Non-White Indigenous, which accounts for 10,956 denominations; (5) Anglican, which accounts for 240 denominations; (6) Marginal Protestant, which includes Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, New Age groups, and all cults (Barrett, 14), and which accounts for 1,490 denominations; and (7) Catholic (Non-Roman), which accounts for 504 denominations. According to Barrett’s calculations, there are 8,196 denominations within Protestantism—not 25,000.So upon hearing the numbers, many apparently take it at face value as 33,000 denominations, they must all be Protestant. But as you can see here, Barrett included a lot of "fringe" groups, and counted Catholics as numerous groups. Thus, I wonder whether his "8,196" number of Protestant denominations is even correct for what we would consider a "denomination."
Thus, I agree with Armstrong when he says, "I think we can safely refer to 'hundreds' of Protestant denominations, using a cogent doctrinal definition, not merely jurisdictional or superficial (though institutional unity is [n]ot an unbiblical characteristic, either, if we want to get technical about it)."
-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), October 03, 2004.
Ian--Why isn't this regeristing for you?
Jesus says in Matt 16:19 that the keys are to bind and loose.
Then in Matt 18:18--speaking to the disciples--he tells them all that they can bind and loose.
So clearly--he gave all the disciples the keys.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 03, 2004.
"Jesus says in Matt 16:19 that the keys are to bind and loose. "no He doesn't.
that is in yr imagination.
He appoints St Peter as His Vicar AND ALSO gives him the power to bind a loose.
Emily, i will show you something soon that might help you understand that 30,000 is no exageration.
not that it should matter - whether it is 5,000 or 30,000,....., should it?
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 03, 2004.
Ian, I agree, the Church should all be ONE. Whether it's 100 or 5,000, or 33,000, it's still division and in disobedience to Christ. I am interested in your other source, Ian. Please do share it.
-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), October 03, 2004.
The true church is one in Christ.All true believers are His Body--one with Him.
We are a called out people.
This has nothing to do religious organizations on earth. Jesus did not establish a religion....he established a relationship.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 03, 2004.
Ian--I guess it boils down to a lierary difference.
When I see a sentence divided with a semi-colon--I understand the parenthetical meaning.
"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven(;)[parenthetical meaning] whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 03, 2004.
oops..make that a *literary* difference
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 03, 2004.
Faith,Not that it really makes all that much difference, but the punctuation is different depending on what translation you're using. Check the Greek. I don't think there is any semi-colon or comma used. Let me know if I'm wrong.
I know you're basing your belief on more than a semi-colon, but it's worth noting the punctuation is something the translators added in.
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 03, 2004.
A semicolon does not normally indicate a parenthetical meaning; Parentheses are the proper means of indicating a parenthetical meaning. Hey! I wonder if that's why such meanings are called parenthetical!
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 04, 2004.
THe Grek Orogionals have no punctuation at all...
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 04, 2004.
Emily30,000 denominations?
see here: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl? msg_id=00CQMb
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 04, 2004.
Faithhttp://www.auburn.edu/academic/liberal_arts/english/ec/resources/pot8 .htm
the history of the semicolon!
it post dates the Reformation.
"The semicolon (;) ranks halfway between a comma and a full point. It may be substituted for a period between two grammatically complete sentences that are closely connected in sense; in a long or complicated sentence, it may precede a coordinate conjunction (such as "or," "and," or "but"). A most usual means of indicating the syntactical turning points in a sentence, it is exposed to abuse. It may be used to separate the elements of a series, before a relative clause that does not limit or define its antecedent, in pairs to set off or isolate words or phrases, or in combination with coordinating conjunctions. "
from here: http://www.physics.ohio- state.edu/~wilkins/writing/Resources/essays/punctuation_hist.html
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 04, 2004.
As an English major in college--I definately understood the use of a semi-colon.It shows the connection between the two phrases in the sentence. It shows that they mean the same thing.
Ian posted a good definition to support my understanding.
The semicolon (;) ranks halfway between a comma and a full point. It may be substituted for a period between two grammatically complete sentences that are closely connected in sense.
Parenthetical means that the two phrases mean the same thing--a semi- colon will break up a sentence where the first part describes the thing--and the second phrase defines what that thing is. For example-- when I am writing, I might say *God* and then in parenthesis write (Jesus)..so that the reader knows that I am refering to the Son. But parenthesis are not the right thing to use in a full or long sentence. This is where a semi-colon comes in handy.
In the case of Matt 16:19...Jesus was telling us that the keys are the power to bind and loose. Otherwise--what then are the keys? How is the power to bind and loose not the ultimate authority? I know you need to think that the keys mean something else--but what do you do then? Make up the meaning? Jesus tells us what the keys are to and what they do in his one sentence.
Maybe other translators don't use a semi-colon. But (I don't think it matters at all. The sentence is clear.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 04, 2004.
Well, Faith (Faith), the early Scriptures didn't have any punctuations to mess with: commas, periods, parenthesis, semi-colons; they didn't need them, I guess! Huh?.....................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 04, 2004.
what's the point rod?There is punctuation now!
But in any event--Jesus said what he said. And they understood him.
That is why you don't find that Peter displays any kind of authority over all of the church. Nope. Not even close.
Pauls shows more authority--James also shows more authority.
Peter was actually confined to teaching just the Jews for the most part.
There is no evidence in the Scriptures that anyone was aware of Peter's supposed head of church. None.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 04, 2004.
FaithKJV does NOT use semicolons: it uses colons; and here's what that same source says about colons:
"The colon (:), which was once used like a full point and was followed by an uppercase letter, now serves mainly to indicate the beginning of a list, summary, or quotation. "
KJV was published in 1611, wasn't it.
to cross-check, Rheims uses stops and colons. hmm.
the Vulgate, unpunctuated as one migh expect says this:
"19 et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum ET quodcumque ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in caelis ET quodcumque solveris super terram erit solutum in caelis"
it does NOT say this:
19 et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum IGITUR quodcumque ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in caelis ET quodcumque solveris super terram erit solutum in caelis
we see in the Keys Supreme Leadership, from the mouth of Our Lord. granted to St Peter.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 04, 2004.
"As an English major in college--I definately understood the use of a semi- colon. It shows the connection between the two phrases in the sentence. It shows that they mean the same thing."A: It shows the connection between two phrases in a sentence; but it does NOT show that they mean the same thing. In fact, just the opposite. For example ...
"The Sacraments of Initiation in the Catholic Church are: Baptism; Eucharist (Holy Communion); Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession); and Confirmation."
Here we see both types of punctuation used properly. The semicolon indicates, as you said, a relationship between two phrases. It indicates that there is a relationship between Baptism and Eucharist (they are both Sacraments of Initiation). At the same time it indicates that Baptism and Eucharist are NOT the same thing; nor does "Eucharist" provide additional information about Baptism. The semicolon indicates that they are distinct elements. A couple of the distinct elements in this sentence are followed by parenthetical information, properly enclosed in parentheses. Thus, we know that Eucharist and Holy Communion ARE the same thing, while Baptism and Eucharist are NOT. The semicolon takes the place of "and", making the sentence easier to read. "The Sacraments of Initiation are Baptism and Eucharist and Reconciliation and Confirmation" is a bit cumbersome.
If Matthew 16:19 read "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven (whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven)", then you could claim parenthetical explanation. But it does not. It reads "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; AND whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, AND whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." Not only are the two phrases separated by a semicolon, indicating that they are distinct thoughts, but they are further separated by the word "AND". If I give you an apple AND and orange, the two things I gave you cannot be identical with each other. Therefore there can be no doubt that two separate and distinct ideas are present here. Jesus gave Peter two separate spiritual gifts which would be necessary for his unique ministry in Christ's Church. He gave the other Apostles a share in one of those gifts; but the other gift, supreme authority, the keys, rested with Peter alone.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 04, 2004.
Zarovedo you have Greek input on this one [as you did above]?
i know that protestants distrust the Vulgate; but i have "shewn" that the Vulgate and the KJV (which deliberately does not draw upon the Vulgate) are in accord: we have, in effect, full-stops bewteen each component part of St Matthew 16:19; they are semi-autonomous gifts, as it were; it now seems clear.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 04, 2004.
A few things abouthtat Ian...first off, Faith doesnt use the KJV. I know you think its the Protestant Bible and final protestant authority, tis not. In fact, many protestants disregard it and actually attack it.
Secondly, the KJV Did make use of the Vulgate in soem instances, and even praised Jerome as a first rate translator in the dedication epistle.
Like the Bishops Bible, and the Coverdale Bible, the Vulgate was refered back to for reference.
Though where the origional Languages diverged from the references, the origional Language prevailed. The KJV set presedence in the origional Languages and used the other translations as aids in how others saw the passages.
Thirdly, I already gave the Greek rendering.
In Mathew 16, Their are no punctuation marks.
Thus, I give you Mathew 16:19 in a modified KJV format. This format removes the artificial language added by the translators, and punctuation.
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven
The semicolen in the origional KJV is presented to make the readign easier and break up the two existign thoughts.
However, tis actually one thoughtm, with two complementing parts. This grammatical explanation though doesnt relaly proive or disprove either the Catholic or Protestant argument. Only reading in subsequent context will resolve any conflict.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 04, 2004.
dankjewel Zarove.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 04, 2004.
you must, through all this stubborness, Faith, at least admit that you are being humoured.if i might, it has been shewn that the punctuation points to discrete gifts being handed out by Our Lord.
and, moreover, from a commone sense perspective, i note your words: "And as I showed in Matt 16...Jesus defines what the keys are. They are the power to bind and loose.,"
and i ask why Our Lord should define a term that He never again uses.
you will under stand, i hope, my point.
with respect, Faith, "all roads lead to Rome".
1/ the common sense/ natural take
2/ the semantic take
3/ etc
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 04, 2004.
Ian..,Jesus does use the term again in the book of Revelation.
Rev. 1:18
I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.
Jesus likes to define what the keys are to.
In Matt 16--they are to bind and loose.
And the same thing is said again in Matt 18. Of course--no need to say keys again. We get it.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 04, 2004.
Here's an interesting commentary by the famous John Wesley I think is worth sharing. Bold type is my addition:
"Mat 16:19 - I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven - Indeed not to him alone, (for they were equally given to all the apostles at the same time, Joh_20:21-23;) but to him [Peter] were first given the keys both of doctrine and discipline. He first, after our Lord's resurrection, exercised the apostleship, Act_1:15. And he first by preaching opened the kingdom of heaven, both to the Jews, Act_2:14, and to the Gentiles, Act_10:34. Under the term of binding and loosing are contained all those acts of discipline which Peter and his brethren performed as apostles: and undoubtedly what they thus performed on earth, God confirmed in heaven. Mat_18:18.
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 04, 2004.
And another by Albert Barnes (a Presbyterian minister) on the KJV regarding "binding and loosing".
"The phrase “to bind” and “to loose” was often used by the Jews. It meant to prohibit and to permit. To bind a thing was to forbid it; to loose it, to allow it to be done. Thus, they said about gathering wood on the Sabbath day, “The school of Shammei binds it” - i. e., forbids it; “the school of Hillel looses it” - i. e., allows it. When Jesus gave this power to the apostles, he meant that whatsoever they forbade in the church should have divine authority; whatever they permitted, or commanded, should also have divine authority - that is, should be bound or loosed in heaven, or meet the approbation of God.
They were to be guided infallibly in the organization of the church:
1. by the teaching of Christ, and,
2. by the teaching of the Holy Spirit.
This does not refer to persons, but to things - “whatsoever,” not whosoever. It refers to rites and ceremonies in the church. Such of the Jewish customs as they should forbid were to be forbidden, and such as they thought proper to permit were to be allowed. Such rites as they should appoint in the church were to have the force of divine authority. Accordingly, they commanded the Gentile converts to “abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood” Act_15:20; and, in general, they organized the church, and directed what was to be observed and what was to be avoided. The rules laid down by them in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistles, in connection with the teachings of the Saviour as recorded in the evangelists, constitute the only law binding on Christians in regard to the order of the church, and the rites and ceremonies to be observed in it."
Add to these commentaries the idea of apostolic succession and we may have something. Just wanted to throw those out there as food for thought.
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 04, 2004.
Thanks Andy..But I don't follow Wesley and I am not Presbyterian.
I just find that the keys are to bind and loose--and if that means to prohibit and permit--it probably has to do with evangelism and accepting the gospel as be the ultimate key into heaven.
As disciples--we hold this power in that we can lead many to Christ-- and keep them from the fate of damnation with the truth of thre gospel.
In this way--the keys that Jesus holds are exactly the same.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 05, 2004.
But I don't follow Wesley and I am not Presbyterian.I know Faith. There are aspects of those commentaries I disagree with, though not for the same reasons you do.
I just thought it might be useful to present a couple more different points of view.
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 05, 2004.
these extracts draw out another viewpoint that Faith has shared that is not exactly on all fours with Scripture.somewhere above, Faith says that:
"I see the *keys* as being the same thing as the power to loose and bind. I see keys as being something used to *unlock* something...perhaps such as the meaning of the gospel. I see them as being given to those in authority--To have the authority to preach and reveal the truth...about what Jesus came and did and said."
IOW, not only do we see assimilation between: (A) the Keys; and (B) the power to loose and bind,
but then we are also presented with a transformation of the "power to loose and bind" into some kind of "right or power to evangelise".
this then leaves one wondering what exactly an Apostle does when he "binds", and what he does when he "looses". the sense of the passage appears to be completely lost.
if we all have the Keys, how would i go about binding Rod or loosing Elpidio?
what would i have to do?
vis a vis St Matthew 18:18 - which is where the Apostles are given the power to **loose & bind**- it is useful to note that this comes at the end of a discussion about the ultimate authority of the Church to anathemise or excommunicate. binding and loosing therefore is a power - and that seems to square with the tradition of the time. the Church can withdraw Communion from the recalcitrant. Bishops can exclude the unruly. if censured by the Church, censured by God.
to further clarify, in St John 20:23, we see the explicit reference to the power to forgive sins. therefore, we know that the disciples were given this special power to forgive sins. Faith does not believe that anyone but God forgives sins - well, he delegated it here to His Church. this power to "bind and loose" in St Matthew, whatever it may be, may therefore be a different animal - unless the disciples had forgotten what they had been told - and if they had forgotten, how come it is in Scripture.
that leaves us with St Matthew 16:19 and the Keys to the Kingdom. we know that only St Peter was expressly given the Keys ("TIBI dabo", "i will give to THEE"). St Peter was also give the power to loose and bind that was given to all the Apostles in St Matthew 18:18.
Faith contends that the Key is shorthand for this power: of course, this requires one to believe that the grant of the Keys was a completely redundant act, because the power to loose and bind is the same thing. that is, because they disciples were given the power to loose and bind, they also have the Keys even though the word Key was never used.
that's a point of view but it ignores certain factors: * Scripture: the reference to Keys in Isaias 22:22; and remember that Our Lord had mastered Scripture a long time before then * the significance of Keys in prevailing Hebrew tradition - as outlined by Paul M above * the limited nature of the grant in St Matthew 18:18 which appears to follow a discussion on the way to handle dispute and the role of the Church and its senior figures in patrolling discipline * the absence of a "consequently" or "therefore" after the grant of the keys and before the "explanation" of what this grant means
we see therefore that St Peter's power to "rule" is unlimited. he is to become the "head-honcho" once a "Vicar" is required. what power Our Lord enjoyed on earth is to be the Pope's. settling dogma and rules. establishing disciplines and rules.
but i go back to my original question:if we all have the Keys, how would i go about binding Rod or loosing Elpidio?
and Elpidio and Rod - do not worry, i will neither loose nor bind you unless you want me to.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 05, 2004.
Great input from Wesley. He had many "Catholic" ideas in his doctrine. His doctrine of "entire sanctification" is quite close to the view of Catholocism on salvation. Wesley didn't teach a "once- saved always-saved," view of salvation either. Very well respected teacher, preacher, evangelist. I think he would be mortified if he could the state of Methodism in this country and around the world. The Wesleyans, however, are still carrying the torch for him! (Wesley was the founder of "methodism")There are many modern day, well-known Protestant apologists who echo Wesley's thoughts on Peter!
************
This is the thing, Faith, if you want to throw out 2,000 years of history and cling only to the scripture, you may certainly do so. But then you can't rely on Athanasius or any of the other church fathers to substantiate your beliefs, or even to undergird your theory of what belongs in the canon of scripture. I think you stated the Protestant position quite well somewhere saying something to the effect that 'they just happened to be.' My sister-in-law, who is Assembly of God, made a similar statement as this. You are really left in a sort of "either/or" position. You can't claim one sentence from one father and say "See I knew I was right," and disregard the rest.
Yes, Catholics, have a different "rule of faith." Ours is based on scripture AND history; not just one father, BUT ALL OF THE FATHERS! ALL OF HISTORY! We have a ruler that extends all the way back to the apostles, and extends through the centuries into this present age.
The problem with your "rule of faith," Faith, is that it positions you to be carried away by every wind of doctrine; i.e., the multiplicity of differing "Bible interpretations" puts you in a very precarious position; like being tied to the top of a weather vane and blown about by the various winds that blow your way. Please don't think I am being unkind in this analogy. This is the way I see Protestantism. This is the way I EXPERIENCED Protestantism. And this is the reason I turned by back on Protestantism, as a way of faith! To the extent that Protestants bring Jesus to the world -- I PRAISE GOD! And pray for their continued success!!
Gail
-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 05, 2004.
Gail said: This is the way I EXPERIENCED Protestantism.Me too, Gail. I praise God every day for bringing me to the Catholic Church! No more being blown about and wondering what's right and where to go... God has revealed His Truth to us; we don't have to wonder what it is, we just have to obey.
-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), October 05, 2004.
Ian--We can only bind and loose what is already bound and loosed in heaven.
God has already predestined those who believe in His Son--to certain blessing such as eternal life.
As a disciple--we go out into the world and preach the gospel in order to lead as many as will come--to Christ.
They will receive their eternal blessing, which was predermined by God in heaven., because they accepted the gospel that you as a disciple, preached to them.
I believe that this is the power of binding and loosing......binding and loosing what is bound and loosed in heaven. Prohibited or permitted into heaven based on what we do with Jesus.
The entire doctrine of the seat of the papacy rests heavily on one single verse in Scripture. Matt. 16:19. There is no other place in Scripture that you can point to, to uphold such a notion. This is a scary thing in my opinion. This means that the entire Catholic Institution colapses if Matt. 16:19 has been misinterpreted.
When I look at the history of that seat and I see the evil that sprang from it--I find it impossible to believe that this is what Jesus instituted.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 05, 2004.
Gail and Emily--What you seem to miss is that Catholicism is just one of many opinions and interpretations as well.
You can claim that your church goes all the way back to Peter all you want. Scripture simply doesn't reveal that.
In my opinion.., the early church--or part of it anyway-- lost touch with God's truth at the time of Constatine when he blended Christianity in with the paganism of Rome.
All you have yo do is look at your feasts and festivals and rites and relics and pilgramages to see that you mimic paganism.
We don't see any of that revealed in the Scriptures as being a part of the church then. But we do see plenty of warnings about its' coming.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 05, 2004.
Catholicism is not "one of many options". It is the one and only Church founded by Jesus Christ, who personally denounced the idea of "options" because He knew that "options" mean untruth, and it is truth which sets us free. He prophecied about the eventual appearance of "options", saying ... "the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. (2 Timothy 4:3-4) This detailed description of denominationalism, voiced by Jesus 1,500 years before it finally happened, expresses His view of "options". He further revealed His view of "options" when He prayed ... "that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be one in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me". (John 17:21) For 1,000 years after Christ the will of God prevailed. There were no "options". To be Christian meant belonging to the one Church Christ founded for all men, the Catholic Church. In the 11th century the heavens were shaken when a large portion of His Church went into schism, separating from the biblical "pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim 3:15). In the 16th century, the heavens were shaken again when additional members of His Church turned their backs and walked away, founding new, unauthorized churches in direct conflict with His own, and spawning a tradition which He had both predicted and denounced 1,500 years earlier. The wqill of God was that UNITY, not "options", would characterize His followers. God's plan has not changed. He still desires that same unity. He still calls all men to the Church He founded for them - the one that He commissioned to make disciples of all people, and to lead all people home.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 05, 2004.
Paul--Considering the fact that I didn't ever say *option*., you sure did over-use it back at me.., huh?
I think that the Catholic Church also fulfills Paul's warning in 2 Timothy 4., along with every other cultic religion such as the jehovah Witnesses and the Mormons--to name a few other religions that have cast aside the truth in Scripture for their own made-up doctrines...doctrines of devils.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 05, 2004.
Faith1) i wish to *bind* Rod
2) i wish to *loose* Elpidio
these are opposites.
please explain how i should go about this. you tell me i have the Keys. so tell me how i do this.
a straight question deserves a straight answer.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 05, 2004.
I never said that you had the keys rod...I said all disciples of Christ have them and do not need to be told how to use them.
It is called evangelism.., you must lead people to Christ through the gospel.
I don't know if you have the keys rod.
You seem somewhat lost to me--still. Are you born-again? Have you experienced a life changing conversion?
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 05, 2004.
I've had life conversions to fill a book. I've sunk to the bottom of the sea and back up again. For awhile, I thought I was walking with Christ. Then, it became very obvious that my feet were frying with only a matter of time before the rest of me joined in the mess. My one and only solution is to keep having faith in God that He will judge me accordingly. I can't exactly turn back the hands of time..............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 05, 2004.
Rod1) i have asked Faith how i can "bind" you.
2) i also want to "loose" Elpidio.
so far, she has told me that i can do these things. BUT she is unwilling to tell me how.
maybe you could "bind" or "loose" me and i can reverse-engineer the process.
Faith,
you CANNOT be so opinionated yet be unable to explain yr opinions.
you say that we can all BIND and LOOSE.
now tell us how to do it.
a/ how do we BIND
b/ how do we LOOSE
and, after you have "told us", we go back to Scripture and check it out.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 05, 2004.
Faithi think we are nearing the "end of the track" on this one.
you now owe us some straight answers.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 05, 2004.
Faithjust so we are clear about this, these questions are 100% serious and well meant.
i believe that your opinions are easily defeated by reductio ad absurdum.
you must answer, unless you agree.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 05, 2004.
Hi Ian, Faith did answer me. She said that I was just wasting her time. It is amazing how my difficult questions are answer with simple knee jerk answers from her.Oops! I did it again. I didn't meant to waste your time, Faith, sorry.
...........................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 05, 2004.
Wrong rod--This was what I said:
I never said that you had the keys rod... I said all disciples of Christ have them and do not need to be told how to use them.
It is called evangelism.., you must lead people to Christ through the gospel.
I don't know if you have the keys rod.
You seem somewhat lost to me--still. Are you born-again? Have you experienced a life changing conversion?
**********
This answer was immediately following your question. Why Ian didn't see it is curious to me.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 05, 2004.
"Why Ian didn't see it is curious to me."because you posted TO Rod (!!!!!) and because i think you have misunderstood the question.
let me try and explain it again:
"bind" and "loose" are alternatives and opposites.
assume X has the keys and therefore is empowered to bind and loose.
so: how would X "bind" me
conversely how would X "loose" Rod?
you seems to say that you would do this by evangelising. is that correct?
i just want to be clear on this, if you are willing to provide a direct answer.
you will understand my confusion when the obvious meaning of these terms is to bind (set a requirement) or loose (waive a requirement). to bind (anathemise) and loose (absolve). here the meaning is quite clear.
evangelisation is oonly one thing - the imagery simply does not work.
furthermore, why would there need to be an explicit grant of the power to evangelise? we had evangelists before Our Lord. what does having the keys amount to? does it amount to a kind of magic, the power to mesmerise someone into the faith?
with your interpretation, i am confused. maybe you now understand why?
this interpretation has strayed miles away from the Scripture and its context.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 06, 2004.
No Ian--what has strayed far from the meaning in the Scriptures--is the Catholic Church's doctrine of the Papacy--a false and evil seat!And yes Ian--the keys to the kingdom are in the hands of every true disciple--to lead those to Christ. In Christ we are forgiven. Apart from Him we are not.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 06, 2004.
So, which ONE of the thousands of conflicting Protestant denominations has NOT strayed from the meaning of the Scriptures? To hear them talk, you would think that the Scriptures can mean anything they want them to mean, even if Scripture thereby contradicts itself. But I can't think of any Scripture which supports that idea. Conflicting interpretations mean false interpretations. The only place you can find consistent, solid, non-conflicting Scriptural interpretation is in the Church Christ founded - the one to which God gave the Scriptures in the first place. I guess He knew what He was doing after all.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 06, 2004.
Yes Paul--but fortunately--that one church is a spiritual body of true believers...And it is not any religious institution on the face of the earth. Not Catholicism., Mormonism or Jehovah Witnesses. It's also not any of the protestant denominations. No religious institution will suffice.
God's church is Christ's body--a called out people., those who heard the call and by His Word--have been healed.
It boils down to true understanding--true revelation and true faith., and it has no earthly bounds. jesus said that His kingdom is NOT of this world. He said that His kingdom would not be won by the sword. So therefore, no religion qualifies..NONE.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 06, 2004.
Faithi'm not going to carry on in this thread because i think it has become somewhat pointless now. you are reverting back to mantra instead of engaging in specific debate and analysis.
if, however, you feel like giving a straight answer to the question that i have posited several times now (how dones one "loose", conversely how does one "bind"), please feel free to do so and we can make some more progress.
finally, when you say:
"The entire doctrine of the seat of the papacy rests heavily on one single verse in Scripture. Matt. 16:19. There is no other place in Scripture that you can point to, to uphold such a notion. This is a scary thing in my opinion. This means that the entire Catholic Institution colapses if Matt. 16:19 has been misinterpreted."
this cuts both ways Faith. and it has dire consequences.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 07, 2004.
It doesn't cut both ways Ian.Peter himself never knew he was pope.
And as far as answering you again about binding and loosing, forget it. I made my answer clear. If you don't understand it--then that is your problem, but don't say that I didn't answer you with a straight answer. I can't make it any simpler.
The power to bind and loose has to do with leading people to Christ unto salvation--or not. When someone accepts the gospel message--they are saved. When they reject it--they are lost. We have this power in Christ. Our evangelism will either bind[permit] or lose[forbid] people., depending on their response.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 07, 2004.
mmmmmmthe power to evangelise or to unevangelise.
why would Our Lord want the disciples to drive some toward Him and others away.
that makes no sense whatsoever. it is an unnatural, and false, interpretation of Scripture.
as for St Peter, he could be a real buffoon at times, but the Church has always known him as first Pope.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 07, 2004.
It was an after-the fact., idea.Surely none of the apostles recognized Peter as an official head.
Paul rebuked Peter publicly. He didn't speak to him as the head of anything at all...
There is simply no evidence that Peter lead anyone....
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 08, 2004.
The fact that Paul disagreed with Peter on a matter of protocol is absolutely irrelevant. Ever since then the bishops of the Church have continued to meet with the Pope and air their concerns, including their lack of agreement with various decisions. So what? Would it be necessary, in order for Peter to be the first Pope, that no-one ever disagreed with any opinion he held? That is sheer nonsense.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 08, 2004.
Show me even ome verse where any of the apostles greet peter as head of the entire church. Surely such a position should entitle Peter to quite the acknowledgement.Show me ome verse where the apostles recognize Peter for who you say he was....
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 08, 2004.
Hi Faith, where does scripture say that binding and losing have to do with leading men to salvation? I've looked and I can't seem to find what specific verse you are referencing. . . .?Also, Faith, you keep asking for proof from the apostles that Peter had a "lead role," yet didn't Christ specifically give Peter the Shepherd's mantle? And only Peter?
Gail
-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 08, 2004.
To bind and loose is to forbid or permit people into the Kingdom of God. This is the authority we have with the gospel message. If a person rejects the gospel he is forbidden into the Kingdom of God. We are binding and loosing--what was already bound and loosed according to God's forknowledge. We have the keys--which are in Christ Jesus unto the salvation of souls...I am not sure what you mean by shepherd's mantle. Can you direct me to the Scripture regarding this?
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 09, 2004.
Faith"feed my sheep"
isn't that what shephereds do?!?!
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 09, 2004.
Jesus gave that command three times to Peter. That was the equivalent of how many times Peter denied Jesus.Jesus was giving Peter a chance to redeem himself and be brought back into the good graces of God.
Hardly a picture of leadership.
In fact--as disciples of Jesus we are all to do the will of God-- which is to be like Jesus and have the same heart cry as Jesus.
We are all to feed the sheep.
But there is only one Shepherd...
John 10 :: New International Version (NIV) Listen to this Read the commentary Printer-Friendly Page Bookmark this Page See this passage in AlbanianEnglishFrançaisDeutschItalianoLatinNorskPortuguesEspañolSvensk aTagalogArabicNederlandsPlautdietschDanishSlovakPolishRussianRomanianC zechHungarianIcelandicKoreanBulgarianChineseHaitianMaoriCroatianGreekS wahiliNIVNASBMSGAMPNLTKJVNLVHCSBESVCEVNKJVKJ21ASVWEYLTDARBYWYCNIRVNIV- UK Previous chapter | This chapter | Next chapter
John 10
The Shepherd and His Flock
John 10:1-21
"I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep. The watchman opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger's voice." Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them. Therefore Jesus said again, "I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep. All who ever came before me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. "I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me-- just as the Father knows me and I know the Father--and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life--only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father." At these words the Jews were again divided. Many of them said, "He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?" But others said, "These are not the sayings of a man possessed by a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?"
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 09, 2004.
not my work:In Ezekiel 34 God says repeatedly "I myself will look after and tend my sheep"... "I myself will pasture my sheep" (34:11-15)... but in verse 23, God says: "I will appoint one shepherd over my sheep to pasture them, my servant David; he shall pasture my sheep and be their shepherd"... and so, he who is loyal to David or his successors, belongs to the People of God, and he who is not loyal to David or his successors, does not belong to the People of God, even if he is a Jew born in Jerusalem, rather he is a rebel, or a heretic ("heretic" means "rebel")...
Jesus did the same: In John 10 he repeats "I am the shepherd... I am the good shepherd"... but in John 21, after resurrection, Jesus says 3 times to Peter, and only to Peter, in front of the other Apostles, "feed my lambs... tend my sheep... feed my sheep" (John 21:15-17)... "my lambs"... "my sheep"... the lambs and sheep of Jesus!...
so now, accordingly, he who is loyal to Peter or his successors, belongs to the only Church of Christ, and he who is not loyal to Peter or his successors, does not belong to the Church of Christ, even if he knows all the Bible by heart, he is a rebel, or a heretic...
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 09, 2004.
faiththe next time one of my kids misbehaves, i am going to tell him to feed my sheep. will he say "sorry". no he is more likley to say: "But Daddy you do not have any sheep".
the next time a judge looks for a sign of repentance in a convicted criminal, maybe he should say to him "Feed my sheep". but the criminal is more likely to say "do it yourself" than say "sorry".
this is the most "novel" interpretation i have yet seen from you - and that's saying something!!
if the stakes were no so high, i'd be giggling right now.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 09, 2004.
Ian..,Ezekeil 34:23-24]
I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will tend them; he will tend them and be their shepherd. 24 I the LORD will be their God, and my servant David will be prince among them. I the LORD have spoken.
Who is "David my servant"?
Prophecy is everything Ian. My servant David refers to Messiah.
Jeremiah 23:5-65
"The days are coming," declares the LORD , "when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which he will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness.
In other words Ian...Jesus the Christ is the One Shepherd of the sheep.
And since Jesus is God---God does not contradict Himself as you seem to think.
Hebrews 13:20-21
May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will, and may he work in us what is pleasing to him, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
John 10:11
"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.
Peter is not the successor.....
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 09, 2004.
Of course Peter is not the "successor" of Christ. That would be blasphemous. GOD does not have a successor! Peter and HIS successors are only the appointed vicars or representatives of Christ, the Good Shepherd.Jesus, the Good Shepherd, to Peter (and no-one else) ... "Feed my lambs; Feed my sheep" (John 21:15-17)
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 09, 2004.
Paul..Ian was claiming that David was the one that God named the Shepherd over all.., and that Peter was a successor to David.
But the Bible reveals that God alone is the Shepherd of His sheep.
My Servant David--is Messiah....and Jesus is Messiah. Do you see?
There is no other Shepherd but God.
Notice even Jesus' comand for Peter to feed the sheep--Jesus doesn't say feed your sheep...He says "feed My sheep!"
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 09, 2004.
Exactly! Because Jesus is THE Good Shepherd, and Peter is simply His appointed representative - shepherd of HIS flock!
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 09, 2004.
Jesus Reinstates PeterJohn 21:15-19
When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?" "Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my lambs." Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me?" He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep."
The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Feed my sheep. I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go."
Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, "Follow me!"
Anyone who thinks that this is anything more than Jesus giving Peter a chance to redeem himself for denying Jesus three times-- should really take up some Bible study. There is significant correlation here....and it has nothing to do with Peter becoming pope.
Peter failed Jesus miserably. In order to be e real disciple., you cannot deny Christ--and you must follow Him.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 09, 2004.
Paul wrote, "Peter and HIS successors are only the appointed vicars or representatives of Christ, the Good Shepherd."Where does the Bible say that there were "any" successors to the apostles??? Was there a requirement to be an apostle???
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 09, 2004.
Either there were successors to the Apostles, doing the same work in the Church they did - or, the Church died when they died. Since Christ promised He would be with His Church until the end of time, it is apparent that the work of the Apostles continued in the Church after their death - which could only happen through their successors. Obviously the Apostles had some unique foundational roles in the Church, which their successors would not have. A Church can only be founded once. that's why we don't call their successors "Apostles". But they also had essential administrative, authoritarian, teaching, evangelizing, and sacramental roles without which the Church Christ founded could not endure. It did endure, just as Christ said it would; therefore these ministries did continue to be provided; therefore others took over when the Apostles died. These other were their successors.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 09, 2004.
This is where Jesus commissioned His disciples to make successors:Matt 28:16-20
Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 10, 2004.
Paul wrote, "Either there were successors to the Apostles, doing the same work in the Church they did - or, the Church died when they died."It is easy to assert something Paul, much harder to prove it...Please quote the Scripture(s) that say that there are successors to the Apostles.
Paul wrote, "Since Christ promised He would be with His Church until the end of time, it is apparent that the work of the Apostles continued in the Church after their death - which could only happen through their successors."
This is not the truth. Jesus said in John 16:13, "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth;" The Holy Spirit completed His work as we now have "all truth" as given to us in the New Testament.
Paul wrote, "Obviously the Apostles had some unique foundational roles in the Church, which their successors would not have. A Church can only be founded once. that's why we don't call their successors "Apostles"."
I am still waiting for you to provide the Scriptural proof that there were "successors" to the Apostles.
Paul wrote, "But they also had essential administrative, authoritarian, teaching, evangelizing, and sacramental roles without which the Church Christ founded could not endure."
The only church offices that Christ gave His church are found in the pages of the New Testament. There are numerous offices in the Catholic Church that have "no" scriptural authority.
Paul wrote, "It did endure, just as Christ said it would; therefore these ministries did continue to be provided; therefore others took over when the Apostles died. These other were their successors."
Yes, the church that Christ founded, the church of Christ (not the Catholic Church) has continued throughout the centuries and will continue until Christ returns. There are no successors to the Apostles and never have been except in the minds of Catholics.
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 12, 2004.
Faith,There is a difference between "successors" and "disciples" The verses you quoted, Matt 28:16-20 speak of "disciples".
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 12, 2004.
Well Kevin--Yhis is in fact how Jeus teaches us.
He says that we are to pass on everything he commanded us--to every disciple that comes after us....
If the original disciples hasd to pass "everything' that Jesus commanded and taught--then that includes everything including the power to bind and loose.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 12, 2004.
Faith,What "power" do we have to "bind and loose"???
What are we binding and loosing???
We have the written New Testament, please tell us what else is needed?
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 12, 2004.
Jesus told the Apostles in Matthew 28:19-20, "19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you..."Disciples are made by being baptized...
We don't need an outside observer or entity to teach us the things of God for He has already provided what we are to observe in His written word the New Testament.
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 12, 2004.
Kevin..,Our power to bind and loose is in Christ and His gospel message-- which we bring to people as His disciples--just like the original twelve did in their day..
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 12, 2004.
"We have the written New Testament, please tell us what else is needed?"How can you ask that when you can plainly see that those who use only the Bible are in a state of doctrinal chaos and ongoing disintegration into more and more conflicting bits and pieces every day? Just the opposite of what Jesus described for His Church - UNITY of belief, UNITY of worship. Obviously they need something else or they would not be so far from the stated will of God!
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 12, 2004.
Faith,Do we have (according to you) power to "bind and loose" anything that has not been written down for us in the New Testament? If we can only do this through what already been written, then you are mistaken as this has already been bound and loosed for us through the inspired men who wrote God's word down for us.
I wrote, "We have the written New Testament, please tell us what else is needed?"
To which Paul replied, "How can you ask that when you can plainly see that those who use only the Bible are in a state of doctrinal chaos and ongoing disintegration into more and more conflicting bits and pieces every day?"
This is "not" true Paul. The church of Christ (those churches that are faithful) are not doing the things of which you allege above.
Paul wrote, "Just the opposite of what Jesus described for His Church - UNITY of belief, UNITY of worship."
The faithful churches of Christ "do" have unity, exactly as Jesus described and contrary to what you believe or have been taught.
Paul wrote, "Obviously they need something else or they would not be so far from the stated will of God!"
They are only following their footsteps of their leader the corrupt Catholic Church!!!
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 13, 2004.
Kevin,If they have unity of belief and worship, WHY are they separate churches?? Also, which denomination gets to decide which denominations (besides itself of course) are the "faithful" ones?
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 13, 2004.
Kevin.,So are you saying that the power to bind and loose was simply in the writing of the Scriptures themselves?
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 14, 2004.
Paul, I think Kevin believes, similar to the Catholic belief, that his church is not a denomination, but rather following Scripture in the way of the original church.He is part of a group called "churches of Christ" that do not consider themselves Protestant, but to be in unity with others who call themselves "churches of Christ." The argument parallels that of the Catholic belief that our Church is not a denomination and we are in unity with other Catholics.
Kevin, please correct me if I'm wrong. I wanted to clarify this because it seemed that there was some misunderstanding on this issue. However, I do not wish to be part of this debate. So Kevin perhaps you could explain how you view Protestants with regard to their beliefs and salvation, in order to bring further clarity to the discussion.
God bless,
-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), October 14, 2004.
Paul, since Kevin is Chruch of Christ, he does not consider himself protestant, nor is his Churhc "Seperate", as most Chruches of christ, dispite the autonomy, are remarkabely simiar in teaching.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 14, 2004.
Some Anglicans, Baptists, Adventists, and other Protestant denominations likewise try to divest themselves of the label "Protestant", but that doesn't change the facts. They are clearly Protestant in both their origins and their theology; and so are the various "Church of Christ" denominations. And not all of them attempt to hide the fact either. The following is from a website of the United Church of Christ ..."Our foundations are in 16th, 17th and 18th century Europe where the Protestant Reformation changed the face of Christendom ... First came the Pilgrims and Puritans from England, who formed Congregational churches. They were soon followed by Swiss and southern German immigrants, who started the Reformed denomination. Later Prussian immigrants arrived and started the Evangelical churches ... While each denomination was different in terms of ethnic origin and specifics of religious belief and practice, all were ecumenical at heart, resulting in the 1931 merger of the Congregational and Christian churches and the 1934 merger of the Evangelical and Reformed branches. The United Church of Christ was established in 1957, when these two denominations joined to form one new church."
There it is - their origins, as described in their own words, on their own website. Why deny what history plainly records?
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 14, 2004.
Using that same analogy, then the Church of Rome is schismatic. The Church was excomunicated by the Patriarch of Constantinople, Paul M. in 1054.The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), October 15, 2004.
The term "schismatic" applies only to separation from the true Church established by Jesus Christ. If one is faithful to the true Church, then obviously one will be "schismatic" from the viewpoint of a schismatic church, which is exactly what one should be. Likewise, heresy is meaningful only in reference to the doctrines of the true Church. If you are not "heretical" from the viewpoint of a heretical Church, then you are as separated from the truth as they are.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 15, 2004.
TO BE SCHISMATIC IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH MEANS ALSO TO ADD OR DELETE THINGS, PAUL M.The Roman Catholic Church has added stuff that the Eastern Orthodox don't acceo like the use of statues, the Spirit proceeding from the Father and The Son....
The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), October 15, 2004.
The term "schismatic" means one thing and one thing only - rejection of the authority of the Vicar of Christ.The Catholic Church has not "added things" that the orthodox reject. The Orthodox have rejected things which were part of the Christian faith for 1,000 years before the Orthodox Church came into existence.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 15, 2004.
Paul M., "United Church of Christ" is different than "churches of Christ". I know, I was confused at first also. I think this is the website for which you're looking: churches of Christ.
-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), October 15, 2004.
From the Roman Catholic perspective, no the Orthodox one.The Orthodox consider the Pope of Rome one among equals, not the main one.
So for the Orthodox, the Church of Rome is schismatic.
The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), October 15, 2004.
Elpidio, right, that's what I said. Once the Orthodox came into existence through schism FROM the pre-existing Catholic Church, they then accused the Catholic Church of being in schism from themselves. Absurd. Kind of like the USA seceding from Great Britain and becoming a new sovereign nation, then turning around and accusing Great Britain of seceding from the United States. Not much logic there.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 15, 2004.
Thanks Emily,OK, here is a similar website for the group in question ...
http://church-of-christ.org/who.html#numbers
Here they state that "Members of the church of Christ do not conceive of themselves as a new church started near the beginning of the 19th century. Rather, the whole movement is designed to reproduce in contemporary times the church originally established on Pentecost, A.D. 30." Yet they clearly describe their founding in the early 19th century by Baptist and Presbyterian ministers. They state that "nothing should be bound upon Christians as a matter of doctrine which is not as old as the New Testament", yet the foundational tradition of their denomination is - guess what - sola scriptura, just like every other Protestent sect, an idea that no Christian on earth ever heard of before the 16th century. Then follows a rundown of their beliefs, typically Protestant through and through - baptism by immersion only; no infant baptism; no intercession of the saints; no sacramenmtal confession; strictly symbolic communion; no purgatory; and of course no creed. How could a group of 15,000 independent Churches, each relying on personal interpretation, possibly have a creed?
They say they started something new. They say they have re-established the Church as it originally existed, yet many of their beliefs obviously have their origins solidly in Protestantism. The original Christian Church was not Protestant; and these folks most certainly are. Their stated beliefs are just a repackaged mix of Baptist and Presbyterian beliefs. Hardly a surprise, given who their founders were.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 15, 2004.
I think we should all remember that the term *Protestantism* is not a reference to a religion or a denomination--but to a movement.There was great disagreement among Christians as to whether Rome was rightly teaching Scripture. Many believed that Rome was wrong--and so a there were many who protested--even before Luther--whose movement really took hold.
These people *Protested* Rome and all of its false teachings that were seeping into Christianity--in particular--all the pagan rites and festivals and the practice of indulgences and the theory of purgatory etc....
Many different denominations have come from this movement--all with slightly different doctrines of faith. But we agree on the essential doctrines unto salvation. For example, the Lutherans and Methodists and Baptists believe in Salvation by faith in Christ alone.., and so do the Calvinists. But the Calvinisits don't believe that anyone can come to faith unless God removes some veil that blinds us until He opens are eyes......but we believe that Jesus is the way in which God removes our unbelief--and that it is a free will choice.
Kevin's religious movement or denomination--whatever you want to call it--didn't exist at the time of the Reformation., yet I think they do protest and disagree with Catholic doctrine as well.. I think it is a fairly new church. At least--I can't seem to trace it's history...
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 15, 2004.
That's true, faith. Long before there were Protestants, there were Waldenses. I come from Waldenses on my mother's side.They originated in France in th 12th century. They and the Cathars (Albigensians) were massacred in one of the crusades led by Saint Dominic and others against the people from Langue D'OC (Provenzal speaking Southern France).
But Pedro Waldo's ideas about being closer to the original Gospel made him also the spiritual father not only of the Waldenses, but later of Protestants and of the Churches of Christ too.
Their dispersion made their ideas known throughout Europe. They influenced Huss, who in turn influnced Martin Luther.
Modern Waldensians tend to be Calvinistic.
I am descended from those who connverted into Catholicism.
I have read quite a few of the documents in Latin from the inquisition on the waldenses. They were famed for curing common afflictions and infirmities. Their main leaders were Barbes, from them comes the last name Barba in Spanish, and Barbero (barber) as an oocupation.
Everyone had something good to say about them. The common expression was always:" They seemed like good people to me."
So my family has always tried to serve God. And, I don't doubt they will continue to do so. It is in our veins, in every ounce of our blood.
The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), October 15, 2004.
Paul M., I agree with you that they are essentially Protestant by default. However, they do not consider themselves to be Protestant, so there is little point in arguing against "Protestantism" with a member of churches of Christ. It would be like a Catholic saying that the Catholic Church is not a denomination and a Protestant insisting that it is, and trying to convince us that it is.As for churches of Christ, what I do appreciate about them is their desire to look at the Scriptures and follow the teachings that are laid out from them. Not that I agree that some of their interpretations are correct, but the fruits of this include the fact that they believe in regenerational baptism, and salvation by grace through faith AND works, just like Catholics. This is something about which Catholics can be glad.
-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), October 16, 2004.
Emily--It strikes me as funny that you would appreciate Kevin's church for strict adherence to the Scriptures--just because they believe that they can earn their way into heaven, like the Catholics. Perhaps they are just as confused as the Catholics and maybe you shouldn't be so glad.
Baptists--for example--are strict adherers to the Scriptures, yet, do you thank God for that? And why not? Because we disagree with your religion as to how one receives salvation?
The Scriptures are clear that there is nothing we can do to earn our salvation. Our works are as filthy rags when they are done apart from having received God's Son.
It is only once we are saved--that we can even hope to please God with our works.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 16, 2004.
Faith said: just because they believe that they can earn their way into heaven, like the Catholics.Faith, this is not what I said, and it is not what Catholics believe. You know this, as we have been over it before. I can't speak of the church of Christ belief to say for sure. I am simply appreciating the fact that we seem to agree on these issues.
Paul,
I also meant to add that churches of Christ believe very similar to Catholics regarding frequency of church attendance and receiving communion. From the site you linked:
How often is the Lord's supper eaten?
It is expected that every member of the church will assemble for worship on each Lord's day. A central part of the worship is the eating of the Lord's supper (Acts 20:7). Unless providentially hindered, each member considers this weekly appointment as binding. In many instances, as in the case of illness, the Lord's supper is carried to those who are hindered from attending the worship.
-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), October 16, 2004.
I know that you deny that you teach salvation by works--Emily. But that is in fact what is Catholic doctrine. Kevin's church is even more so--a church of salvation by works alone!
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 16, 2004.
Paul wrote, "If they have unity of belief and worship, WHY are they separate churches??"Were there separate churches in the New Testament??? Yes or No??? Are you talking about denominational churches or churches of Christ?
You wrote, "Also, which denomination gets to decide which denominations (besides itself of course) are the "faithful" ones?"
It is the word of God which proves which church is the "true church". One can read the word of God and know if a church is "faithful" or "unfaithful". Denominations which came from the Catholic Church do not obey the word of God (just like the Catholic Church) and they are not the true church.
Faith wrote, "So are you saying that the power to bind and loose was simply in the writing of the Scriptures themselves?"
The Apostles bound and loosed initially in the spoken word for this is how the word of God was delivered in the first century. Now that we have the written word of God, the New Testament and there are no more Apostles, the binding and loosing has ceased.
Emily wrote, "Paul, I think Kevin believes, similar to the Catholic belief, that his church is not a denomination, but rather following Scripture in the way of the original church."
Yes Emily the church of Christ is not a denomination.
Emily wrote, "He is part of a group called "churches of Christ" that do not consider themselves Protestant, but to be in unity with others who call themselves "churches of Christ."
Exactly.
Emily wrote, "Kevin, please correct me if I'm wrong. I wanted to clarify this because it seemed that there was some misunderstanding on this issue. However, I do not wish to be part of this debate. So Kevin perhaps you could explain how you view Protestants with regard to their beliefs and salvation, in order to bring further clarity to the discussion."
Protestants like Catholics are not saved for they do not obey the gospel of Christ.
Zarove wrote, "Paul, since Kevin is Chruch of Christ, he does not consider himself protestant, nor is his Churhc "Seperate", as most Chruches of christ, dispite the autonomy, are remarkabely simiar in teaching."
Yes, it is remarkable that the true church is similar in teaching despite being autonomous!!!
Emily wrote, "but the fruits of this include the fact that they believe in regenerational baptism"
Emily that is not correct, we do not believe in "regenerational baptism".
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 16, 2004.
Kevin--God reveals that we are saved by faith--not by anything we do.
Following Christ and obeying Him--comes to us only once we are saved and able to do so. We are saved from the power of sin and it's deserved penalty when we receive Christ by faith. Once we are delivered from this power--only then are we even able to obey and follow God.
This is what the Old Testament is all about. Time and time again we see revealed in the Old Testament--that people are simply unable to obey and follow God's law. This is why Jesus was promised. The whole point of the Old Testament law--was to reveal to us, how much we needed a Savior. It revealed how impossible it is for man to obey and follow God...
Jesus said it Himself when the disciples asked., "Who then can be saved?"...after Jesus had described what man has to do to be perfect and thus be saved. They hung their heads and were in dispair--because they all knew that they could not possibly measure up.
Jesus' answer was that ..."with man it is impossible....but with God--all things are possible. Man cannot save himself--he is not able to be perfect or to never sin. Of course, we know that only perfect beings who are found sinless can enter heaven.
This is what the New Testament reveals.., that Jesus was sinless and perfect--and by being found in Him, we are found perfect and spotless., and we are called righteous because of Him--because we are covered in His blood. His sacrifice at Calvary cleanses us---we are washed clean and found holy. This is the only way we can enter heaven.., not because of what we have done--but because of what Jesus accomplished at Calvary--it is a gift., something we cannot earn-- otherwise--it is no longer a gift.
Salvation is the gift of God--to those who will believe in His Son..for it is by faith we are saved., not by works--so that no one can boast.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 16, 2004.
Kevin said: Emily that is not correct, we do not believe in "regenerational baptism".Ok, sorry Kevin. Well what I mean by that is we agree that baptism is necessary for salvation, that's all.
-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), October 16, 2004.
Baptism is salvation--for it is the washing and renewalof our souls. However, this saving baptism is the one that Jesus brought..,the one that John the baptist foreshadowed..and it is of the Holy Spirit. It is spiritual in nature---as we saw at pentecost.John 1:26-27
"I baptize with water," John replied, "but among you stands one you do not know. He is the one who comes after me, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie."
John 1:30-34
This is the one I meant when I said, 'A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel."
Then John gave this testimony: "I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.' I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God."
******************************
So I agree that baptism is necessary for salvation--I just disagree with you when you think that the baptism that saves could be the water ritual we perform.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 16, 2004.
"Were there separate churches in the New Testament??? Yes or No???"A: No, there were not. There were different local communities of the Church, bound in unity by common belief and common worship, which is what defines a church. The Church is referred to throughout the New Testament as just that - THE Church. Singular. Christ said "upon this rock I will build my CHURCH" - not churches.
"It is the word of God which proves which church is the "true church". One can read the word of God and know if a church is "faithful" or "unfaithful"
A: Oh come on Kevin, let's try to maintain a grasp on reality here. EVERY church that reads the Word of God and self-interprets it will show you, right from the pages of the book, that it is "true", and in so doing it labels that those who conflict with it "untrue". Since EVERY sola scriptura church reaches the exact same conclusion, either (1) they are ALL true (which they cannot be, because of their blatantly conflicting theologies), or (2) it takes a lot more than reading the Bible to know if a church is "true".
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 17, 2004.
Yes--every church in the New Testament times was separate in that it was it's own governing body. It did not have to take orders from or listen to a *head* church because there weren't any.The only head is Jesus and the only governing is done through the Word of God as handled by His true body. This body needs a building to meet in and a community of fellow believers--as exampled in the New Testament.
But there was no head., besides Christ. The same holds true today. Many protestant churches have gone back to the basics--after getting out from under Roman control.
It is true that there is division and disagreement amongst all religions and denominations...this began to be a problem almost right away--even in Paul's ministry.
But this doesn't mean that there aren't churches getting it right. Luckily--Jesus' true body of believers are joined by the Holy Spirit-- and cannot be divided. We have the truth in His Holy Word....
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 17, 2004.
"every church in the New Testament times was separate in that it was it's own governing body. It did not have to take orders from or listen to a *head* church because there weren't any"A: Then by what authority did Paul, after establishing such a "self-governing" local church and ordaining a bishop to oversee it, continue to write to that local church, telling them what they must do and what they must avoid, pointing out to them areas where their "self-governing" was leading them away from the objective truth? By whose authority did Paul do this? His own? If so, why didn't they just write back and tell him to "butt out"? No, Paul directed them under the authority of THE Church which he and they were part of, THE Church to which Christ said "he who hears you hears Me". That's why Paul had authority to direct them, and that's why they were bound before God to accept such direction.
"But there was no head., besides Christ"
A: Christ was gone by this time. There were ordained bishops (like Timothy) in headship over local communities of the Church, and Paul was obviously in headship over those local bishops. But even Paul did not hold the keys to the kingdom. Simon Peter alone was elevated to that degree of headship.
"Many protestant churches have gone back to the basics--after getting out from under Roman control."
A: So ... the basics of Christianity can conflict with the basics??
"It is true that there is division and disagreement amongst all religions and denominations"
A: That's right - and predictable. When you remove a structure from its pillars and foundation, it will immediately start to deform and crumble. Which is why Christ emphasized unity as a central requirement for His followers. He knew that truth can exist only in the presence of unity, since conflicting beliefs means untrue beliefs.
"But this doesn't mean that there aren't churches getting it right"
A: How do you know, since all churches claim to be getting it right, and no manmade church has any more authority than any other to define right and wrong, truth and untruth?
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 17, 2004.
Faith,You wrote, "God reveals that we are saved by faith--not by anything we do."
God disagrees with you for it is written, "Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." (James 2:17).
You wrote, "Following Christ and obeying Him--comes to us only once we are saved and able to do so."
This is your opinion Faith, where is it written in the New Testament???
You wrote, "We are saved from the power of sin and it's deserved penalty when we receive Christ by faith."
The truth of the matter is that one is not saved until they have obeyed the gospel of Christ and this includes Faith, Repentance, Confession and being Baptized into Christ and His death wherein we come in contact with His blood that was shed on the cross.
You wrote, "Once we are delivered from this power--only then are we even able to obey and follow God."
Again, where is the Scripture(s) to back this up??? This most certainly sounds like the Calvinist argument that one cannot come to God because they are depraved without a direct operation of the Holy Spirit. Do you subscribe to this view Faith???
You wrote, "This is what the Old Testament is all about. Time and time again we see revealed in the Old Testament--that people are simply unable to obey and follow God's law."
This also is "not" true. They could obey and in fact would be given blessings if they obeyed. God said in Deuteronomy 11:26-28, "26 Behold, I set before you today a blessing and a curse: 27 the blessing, if you obey the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you today; 28 and the curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside from the way which I command you today, to go after other gods which you have not known."
God didn't say you "cannot obey" He plainly stated in Deuteronomy 30:10 that it "was" possible for them to obey for He said, "if you obeythe voice of the LORD your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this Book of the Law..."
You wrote, "This is why Jesus was promised. The whole point of the Old Testament law--was to reveal to us, how much we needed a Savior. It revealed how impossible it is for man to obey and follow God..."
Again Faith you are mistaken. Jesus wasn't revealed because we couldn't obey... God reveals the reason in 1 John 3:8, "He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil."
You wrote, "Jesus said it Himself when the disciples asked., "Who then can be saved?"...after Jesus had described what man has to do to be perfect and thus be saved. They hung their heads and were in dispair--because they all knew that they could not possibly measure up. Jesus' answer was that ..."with man it is impossible....but with God--all things are possible."
This again is "not" true. Was it possible for the rich man in Matt 19:21-22 to be saved??? Jesus said it was possible for the rich man to be saved, all he had to do was to sell what he had and give to the poor. He rejected what Jesus said because he had great possessions. Could the rich man have obeyed Jesus??? Of course he could have but he chose not too.
You wrote, "Man cannot save himself--he is not able to be perfect or to never sin. Of course, we know that only perfect beings who are found sinless can enter heaven."
Man is able to be perfect because Jesus would not have told us to do this very thing in Matthew 5:48 if we were not able to do this very thing. God also says in 2 Corinthians 7:1, "Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God."
You wrote, "This is what the New Testament reveals.., that Jesus was sinless and perfect--and by being found in Him, we are found perfect and spotless., and we are called righteous because of Him--because we are covered in His blood. His sacrifice at Calvary cleanses us---we are washed clean and found holy. This is the only way we can enter heaven.., not because of what we have done--but because of what Jesus accomplished at Calvary--it is a gift., something we cannot earn-- otherwise--it is no longer a gift."
Who says that we can "earn" a gift by obeying Jesus commandments??? Is this what you are saying Faith??? If so, please tell me which command of Jesus, Faith, Repentance, Confession or Baptism causes one to "earn" their salvation???
You wrote, "Salvation is the gift of God--to those who will believe in His Son..for it is by faith we are saved., not by works--so that no one can boast."
Again you are mistaken, we are saved by faith and the works that are mentioned in this passage Ephesians 2:8-9 speak of the works of the law of Moses, not works of obedience that Jesus has commanded that we obey in order to be saved. If we are not saved by works, then you are calling God a liar for we will certainly be judged by our works for He says in Revelation 20:12, "And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works , by the things which were written in the books. "
You wrote, "Baptism is salvation--for it is the washing and renewalof our souls. However, this saving baptism is the one that Jesus brought..,the one that John the baptist foreshadowed..and it is of the Holy Spirit. It is spiritual in nature---as we saw at pentecost."
That is your opinion that it is "spiritual in nature" and this does not agree with the word of God.
You quoted John 1:26-27 and John 1:30-34 and said, "So I agree that baptism is necessary for salvation--I just disagree with you when you think that the baptism that saves could be the water ritual we perform."
The Apostle Peter thought that baptism was "for the remission of sins" for this is exactly what he told the Jews in Acts 2:38. Annanias told Paul to "arise and be baptized and wash away your sins" in Acts 22:16. Here we have two references that baptism washes or is for the remission of sins. How anyone can miss what God specifically states in His word has to be blind. God had this to say about those who say that baptism is "not" for the remission of sins in 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, "3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing , 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded , who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them." Maybe one day God will open your eyes to the truth Faith.
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 17, 2004.
I wrote, "Were there separate churches in the New Testament??? Yes or No???"To which Paul replied, "A: No, there were not. There were different local communities of the Church, bound in unity by common belief and common worship, which is what defines a church. The Church is referred to throughout the New Testament as just that - THE Church. Singular. Christ said "upon this rock I will build my CHURCH" - not churches."
Sorry, I made a mistake, I should have said "Were there separate autonomous churches in the New Testament???"
I wrote, "It is the word of God which proves which church is the "true church". One can read the word of God and know if a church is "faithful" or "unfaithful"
To which Paul replied, "A: Oh come on Kevin, let's try to maintain a grasp on reality here. EVERY church that reads the Word of God and self-interprets it will show you, right from the pages of the book, that it is "true", and in so doing it labels that those who conflict with it "untrue"."
Paul wants everyone to believe that they cannot read what God has stated in His word and find the true church however this is not the truth. One can read the word of God and see if a church is practicing the doctrines of Christ as delivered in the New Testament and see for themselves if this church is the one true church that Christ founded.
Paul wrote, "Since EVERY sola scriptura church reaches the exact same conclusion, either (1) they are ALL true (which they cannot be, because of their blatantly conflicting theologies), or (2) it takes a lot more than reading the Bible to know if a church is "true"."
This is merely his opinion and is not what the New Testament teaches concerning the church. We can know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. (See 1 John 4:6).
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 17, 2004.
Actually Kevin and Faith, I sincerely challenge either of you to read the writings of the first and second generation Christians and find anything to suggest they were autonomously governed.Here are just a few very early quotes to suggest quite the opposite:
"For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ.]" Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Philadelphians,3(A.D. 110),in ANF,3:80
"Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore- knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, AND AFTERWARDS GAVE INSTRUCTIONS, THAT WHEN THESE SHOULD FALL ASLEEP, OTHER APPROVED MEN SHOULD SUCCEED THEM IN THEIR MINISTRY." Clement of Rome,Pope,1st Epistle to the Corinthians,44:1- 2 (c.A.D. 96),in ANF,I:17.
"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. LET THAT BE DEEMED A PROPER EUCHARIST, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. IT IS NOT LAWFUL WITHOUT THE BISHOP EITHER TO BAPTIZE OR TO CELEBRATE A LOVE-FEAST; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid." Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to the Smyraens,8 (c.A.D. 110),in ANF,I:89-90.
" Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers. Since this, then, is founded on the divine law, I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the Church; when the Church is established in the bishop and the clergy, and all who stand fast in the faith." Cyprian,To the Lasped,Epistle 26/33(A.D. 250),in ANF,V:305.
"Why are there strifes, and tumults, and divisions, and schisms, and wars among you? Have we not [all] one God and one Christ? Is there not one Spirit of grace poured out upon us? And have we not one calling in Christ? Why do we divide and tear to pieces the members of Christ, and raise up strife against our own body, and have reached such a height of madness as to forget that "we are members one of another?" Remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, how He said, "Woe to that man [by whom offences come]! It were better for him that he had never been born, than that he should cast a stumbling- block before one of my elect. Yea, it were better for him that a millstone should be hung about [his neck], and he should be sunk in the depths of the sea, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my little ones. Your schism has subverted [the faith of] many, has discouraged many, has given rise to doubt in many, and has caused grief to us all. And still your sedition continueth." Clement of Rome[regn c.A.D. 91-101],To the Corinthians,46(A.D. 91),in ANF,I:17-18
"Let no man deceive himself: if any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God." Ignatius of Antioch,To the Ephesians,5(A.D. 110),in ANF,I:51
"For there are many wolves in sheep's clothing, who, by means of a pernicious pleasure, carry captive(3) those that are running towards God; but in your unity they shall have no place." Ignatius of Antioch,To the Philadelphians,2(A.D. 110),in ANF,I:80
"Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ.]" Ignatius of Antioch,To the Philadelphians,3(A.D. 110),in ANF,I:80
"For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood; one altar." Ignatius of Antioch,To the Philadelphians,4(A.D. 110),in ANF,I:81
"But flee from all abominable heresies, and those that cause schisms, as the beginning of evils." Ignatius of Antioch,To the Smyrnaens,7(A.D. 110),in ANF,I:89
"See that ye follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father." Ignatius of Antioch,To the Smyrnaens,8:2(A.D. 110),in ANF,I:89
"But those who cleave asunder, and separate the unity of the Church, [shall] receive from God the same punishment as Jeroboam did." Irenaeus,Against Heresies,4,26:2(A.D. 180),in ANF,I:497
"Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church." Cyprian, To Florentius,Epistle 68[66]:8(A.D. 254),in ANF,V:375
"Separate a ray of the sun from its body of light, its unity does not allow a division of light; break a branch from a tree,--when broken, it will not be able to bud; cut off the stream from its fountain, and that which is cut off dries up. Thus also the Church, shone over with the light of the Lord, sheds forth her rays over the whole world, yet it is one light which is everywhere diffused, nor is the unity of the body separated." Cyprian,Unity of the Church,5(A.D. 256),in ANF,V:423
"The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church...He who does not hold this unity does not hold God's law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation." Cyprian,Unity of the Church,5(A.D. 256),in ANF,V:423
"What does the fierceness of wolves do in the Christian breast? What the savageness of dogs, and the deadly venom of serpents, and the sanguinary cruelty of wild beasts? We are to be congratulated when such as these are separated from the Church, lest they should lay waste the doves and sheep of Christ with their cruel and envenomed contagion." Cyprian,Unity of the Church,9(A.D. 256),in ANF,V:424
"Let none think that the good can depart from the Church. The wind does not carry away the wheat, nor does the hurricane uproot the tree that is based on a solid root. The light straws are tossed about by the tempest, the feeble trees are overthrown by the onset of the whirlwind." Cyprian,Unity of the Church,9(A.D. 256),in ANF,V:424
"Do they deem that they have Christ with them when they are collected together, who are gathered together outside the Church of Christ?" Cyprian,Unity of the Church,13(A.D. 256),in ANF,V:426
"Only-Begotten. At this time the altogether wicked heretics and ignorant schismatics are in the same case; the one in that they slay the Word, the other in that they rend the coat." Athanasius,Festal Letter 6,6(A.D. 334),in NPNF2,IV:521
"For you have said, among other things, that schismatics are cut off like branches from the vine, and, being destined for punishment, are reserved like dry wood for the fires of Gehenna." Optatus of Mileve,The Schism of the Donatist,1:10(A.D. 367),in OPT,10
"Indeed it would be monstrous to feel pleasure in the schisms and divisions of the Churches, and not to consider that the greatest of goods consists in the knitting together of the members of Christ's body." Basil,To Evagrius,Epistle 156:1(A.D. 373),in NPNF2,VIII:211
"Heretics bring sentence upon themselves since they by their own choice withdraw from the Church, a withdrawal which, since they are aware of it, constitutes damnation. Between heresy and schism separates one from the Church ON ACCOUNT OF DISAGREEMENT WITH THE BISHOP." Jerome,Commentaries on the Epistle to Titus,3:10(A.D. 386),in JUR,II:194
******
There are dozens of other quotes I could post concerning apostolic succession, the Eucharist, etc., SOLA SCRIPTURE, but I fear that the two people who need to read them the most WON'T!
The early church that you dream of, Kevin and Faith, does not exist in history, but is only a figment of your respective imaginations.
Gail
-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 17, 2004.
Faith and Kevin,Here we have Ireneus directly speaking of "autonomous" churches:
"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self- pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, ASSEMBLE IN UNAUTHORIZED MEETINGS; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church FOUNDED AND ORGANIZED AT ROME by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. FOR IT IS A MATTER OF NECESSITY THAT EVERY CHURCH SHOULD AGREE WITH THIS CHURCH, ON ACCOUNT OF ITS PREEMINENT AUTHORITY, THAT IS, THE FAITHFUL EVERYWHERE, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3:3:2 (A.D. 180),in ANF,I:1415-416
*****************
And here is Pope Victor about to utilize his papal authority and castigate the entire church of Asia, but the bishops along with Irenaeus (above quoted) held him back.
"A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour's passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour...Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor. Among them was Irenaeus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord's day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom ..." Pope Victor & Easter(c.A.D. 195),Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 5:23,24,in NPNF2,I:241-243
*******
Notice the early dates of these two quotes, Faith and Kevin. Do you honestly see autonomous churches here?
Gail
All of these quotes can be found at www.cin.org/users/jgallegos
-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 17, 2004.
I see separate churches all following the head which is Christ-- according to the Word of God...in the New Testament.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 19, 2004.
I see one united Church, in the unity Jesus our Lord prayed for in John 17.
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 19, 2004.
Yes Andy--but that church exists in the hearts and bodies of all true believers...we are His Temple.When Christ returns He will gather us all--and we will be His Kingdom- -He will establish us in the physical at that time......
This begins with the rapture and is followed by the 1000 year reign with Christ here on the earth......
Rev 20:1-6
And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.
I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge (Christians). And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God (Tribulation saints--those who received Christ after the rapture). They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.(The rest of the dead (unbelievers) did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.)
This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.
*****************************
After the 1000 year reign--and the judgement of the dead....then God establishes heaven:
Rev 21:1-8
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."
He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!" Then he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true."
He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son.
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 19, 2004.
Yes Andy--but that church exists in the hearts and bodies of all true believers...we are His Temple.Amen to that Faith! But the church is also a visible entity in the world. Salt of the earth and light of the world that stands against evil and injustice, leading humanity to Christ. That's why Christians must stand together against abortion, materialism, sexual immorality, and social injustice.
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 19, 2004.
Andy--I am glad that you said *Christians*--and not simply Catholics. Because this way I can agree with you.
Christians do need to be a light to those who are lost. There are many, many churches whose people do exactly that--it is not simply a Catholic thing.
When Christ lives in you--you will refect that to those around you. People will want to know the reason for your hope--and the reason for the joy they see in you. We need to always be ready to lead them to Jesus through His Word...
That is where the true church is found...
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 19, 2004.
"The early church that you dream of, Kevin and Faith, does not exist in history, but is only a figment of your respective imaginations."God says in 2 Peter 2:1-3, "1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber."
So much for Gail's assertion...
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 19, 2004.
"Notice the early dates of these two quotes, Faith and Kevin. Do you honestly see autonomous churches here?"Do you see any church in the New Testament controlling another church Gail???
Why were elders (plural) set up in every church??? "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you" (Titus 1:5).
Why is there no mention of a universal bishop (elder) over the church as the Catholic Church has (the pope) in the New Testament???
If anyone had the right to be a pope (if there ever were any such thing), it would be the Apostle Paul. Jesus said in Matthew 23:11, "But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant." God says of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:9-10, "9 For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." (see also 2 Corinthians 11:23).
2 Corinthians 12:11 says, "I have become a fool in boasting; you have compelled me. For I ought to have been commended by you; for in nothing was I behind the most eminent apostles, though I am nothing."
The office of the pope only exists in the minds of Catholics.
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 19, 2004.
"The office of the pope only exists in the minds of Catholics."A: Which would mean that it existed in the mind of every Christian on earth until the Protestant Rebellion. Can you honestly think that all Christians for the first 1,500 years after Christ were completely wrong on such a core issue? Can you honestly think that a new doctrinal idea which originated only a few hundred years ago, through open rebellion against 1,500 years of constant Christian teaching, can have any real merit, or can be considered Christian in any sense? Especially since the group which originated it have since constantly demonstrated their utter inability to define truth in any way that even they themselves can agree upon?
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 19, 2004.
Faith,Christians do need to be a light to those who are lost. There are many, many churches whose people do exactly that--it is not simply a Catholic thing.
I know and I see this Faith. Imagine what Christians could accomplish if we were truly united?
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 19, 2004.
Christians united?? That would be the ideal situation. But, can it really happen on earth?Is there any joy in a place where Protestants and Catholics sit together in close proximity?
I thought that being a Christian involved all believers under one doctrine and one theology. Wrong. Where did it all go wrong? Protestants will blame the Catholics and the Catholics will blame the Protestants. It is a vicious little game. Somebody will win or everyone will lose. Oh, but could it be that everyone will win in their own "personal" way?
...............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 20, 2004.
Christians united?? That would be the ideal situation. But, can it really happen on earth?Good point Rod. Humans being what we are, I'd have to say probably not. Still, we should work together as much as we can to fight evil and spread the kingdom of God. Of course, there's always those doctrinal differences that will keep us from truly being united.
Oh, and even when we agree on basic Christian doctrine, we'll probably always disagree on the application of that doctrine when it comes to morals. Thus we have Christians who read the same Bible (and even claim allegiance to the same church) who both support and fight against abortion, as one example.
I wonder how good Christians in Nazi germany felt when they first heard about the Holocaust. Many Christians, Catholic and Protestant died standing against the Nazis (I'm reminded of St. Maximillian Kolbe and at least one Lutheran minister). But could the Nazis have done what they did if all Christians in Germany had taken a stand against them and not participated in their evil?
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 20, 2004.
Ah! wonderful. He is the one I was trying to remember:St. Maximillian Kolbe.
Kevin are you reading this? St. Maximillian Kolbe is the priest who practically allowed his death to happen in order to save another soul. It was practically suicide. He didn't have to sacrifice himself, but he did willingly. Was he still a Christian even in his final act of sacrifice? Yes, of course he was.
Perhaps suicide has its strict definitions and actions, but the end result is still the loss of life for some reason or another.
................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 20, 2004.
Andy? Is St. Maximillian Kolbe the right man I'm thinking of. You offered himself for execution in place of another person. Yes?...............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 20, 2004.
Oops![He] offered himself for execution in place of another person. Yes?
.........
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 20, 2004.
Yes Rod, that's the guy. He offered himself for execution in place of a Polish soldier who had a family. I think he died in a starvation cell. Maximillian Kolbe was deeply devoted to the Blessed Virgin. He must have truly had a love for Christ and his fellow man in order to perform such an act of love. He's one example of someone who really lived out his faith in Christ. All the way to suffering and physical death.I wish I could remember the name of that famous Lutheran minister who also died in a concentration camp.
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 20, 2004.
In fact, I think there is a biography of Maximillian Kolbe which has an interview (or something similar) of the soldier he died in place of. I haven't had time to track it down yet.
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 20, 2004.
Andy--You are such a nice guy. It makes it hard for me to post what I want to post--so I won't.
Let me just ask though--do you know the history behind not only the Catholic Church's lack of helping the Jews during that time--but of their actual involvement in aiding the escape of criminals guilty of those war crimes against the Jewish people? Have you ever heard of the Vatican Ratlines--an underground network of escape routes used to help these criminals flee? I have always wondered if these claims are true.
Va tican Ratlines
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 20, 2004.
Here's another interesting article:V atican Ratlines
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 20, 2004.
You are definately one twisted being, Faith. In one breath you warm up to Andy be saying how much of a nice guy he is, then you stabb him hard with your wicked dagger of Yellow Journalism. You post links to the smut that you haven't even investigated yourself as to it being realiable. This is the wickness you bring to the people here in this forum. You are just a little innocent person working for those who hate the Catholic Church, right? This is what I am talking about. This is what others have noted. Let's face it. You hate the Catholic Church and will do everything to defile the Church. You are not doing God's work. You are doing your work. Yes, you sweet innocent "who me" Faith. You say you don't want to hurt Andy--all Catholics. Bull, Barf, and Baloney. I now know who you truly are.Preach the good things about Catholicism. Preach those things that the Church has given you. Stop your hatred. I can envision you sitting by your monitor. Your devilish accomplishments are decorated with a smile that is just as wicked.
I dare you to prove what your links propogate.
May God have mercy on your soul for the things you embrace about His Church.
Please don't bother responding to me. I have never brought evil to your church.
.................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 20, 2004.
FaithReally those links lead to stories that read like the Midnight Infomer, or Globe Magazine.
I have had an on an off relationship with Jesuits for the past 40 years and even during my atheist/agnostic periods have never perceived an even mildly antisemetic particle of teaching coming from them. They have continually referred to our predecessors as our Jewish brothers and sisters.
I have to give more credibility to my own experience. Even my more recent research about Pius XII leads me toward giving him the benefit of the doubt. I know much has been written against him, but there is a group of Jews alive during those years who today view him much more possitively. The situation was dire then, and each of us will believe what we want to, and will accept the testimony that feeds our beliefs.
-- Jim (furst@flash.net), October 20, 2004.
Well faith,Instead of basing your opinions on diatribes posted on unauthoritative sites maintained by ignorant anti-Catholic bigots, why don't you try addressing historical questions by going to actual verifiable historical documents? For example, the following two editorials from the New York Times, printed on Christmas day, 1941 and 1942 ...
December 25, 1941, page 20 ...
"The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas ... he is about the only ruler left on the Continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all ... the Pope put himself squarely against Hitlerism ... he left no doubt that the Nazi aims are also irreconcilable with his own conception of a Christian peace."
December 25, 1942, page 10 ...
"This Christmas more than ever he is a lonely voice crying out of the silence of a continent ... Pope Pius expresses as passionately as any leader on our side the war aims of the struggle for freedom when he says that those who aim at building a new world must fight for free choice of government and religious order. They must refuse that the state should make of individuals a herd of whom the state disposes as if they were lifeless things."
Also on record are commendations and in some cases huge monetary awards sent to the Pope by various Jewish leaders after the war, in gratitude for his unrelenting efforts on behalf of the Jewish people, more than 850,000 of whom were saved as a direct result of his personal efforts. Such efforts included - instructions to all convents and monasteries to offer refuge to Jewish people; secretly concealing more than 300 Jewish people within the Vatican itself; a widespread project providing forged baptismal certificates to Jewish people so they could pass as Christians; and arrangements for smuggling thousands of Jewish people into friendly nations.
Here are the thoughts of one Jewish man on the subject, published in the December 23, 1940 issue of Time magazine, page 38 ...
"Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks. Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly." ... Albert Einstein
I could go on and on. The historical evidence is overwhelming. But you seldom seem interested in facts anyway. Incidentally, just so you are aware of your sources, the absurd and viscious rumors you mentioned concerning His Holiness Pius XII were first introduced in a third-rate off-Broadway play called "The Deputy", which appeared a few years after the death of this saintly man. Before that, no-one thought to question in any way what history had so clearly recorded - that Pope Pius XII was the uncontested champion of the Jewish people during the Holocaust.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 20, 2004.
And here is an excerpt from an article found at the Free Republic, non-religious, but conservative outlet:"Curiously, nearly everyone pressing this line today (of anti- Piusism)—from the ex-seminarians John Cornwell and Garry Wills to the ex-priest James Carroll—is a lapsed or angry Catholic. For Jewish leaders of a previous generation, the campaign against Pius XII would have been a source of shock. During and after the war, many well- known Jews—Albert Einstein, Golda Meir, Moshe Sharett, Rabbi Isaac Herzog, and innumerable others—publicly expressed their gratitude to Pius. In his 1967 book Three Popes and the Jews, the diplomat Pinchas Lapide (who served as Israeli consul in Milan and interviewed Italian Holocaust survivors) declared Pius XII "was instrumental in saving at least 700,000, but probably as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands." ....
In response to the new attacks on Pius, several Jewish scholars have spoken out over the last year. Sir Martin Gilbert told an interviewer that Pius deserves not blame but thanks. Michael Tagliacozzo, the leading authority on Roman Jews during the Holocaust, added, "I have a folder on my table in Israel entitled ‘Calumnies Against Pius XII.' . . . Without him, many of our own would not be alive." Richard Breitman (the only historian authorized to study U.S. espionage files from World War II) noted that secret documents prove the extent to which "Hitler distrusted the Holy See because it hid Jews."
The full article can be viewed here: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a9b552e3664.htm
-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 20, 2004.
Faith,Thanks for holding back this time. I'm glad you didn't post what you really wanted to. :) I do appreciate it.
I had already heard about those rumors of the "Vatican Ratlines." Reputable historians have found them to be just that, rumors. In fact, you can see in the references posted by Paul M and Gail that Jews actually praised the work done by Pius XII to save Jews being persecuted by the Nazis.
Pope Pius XII wrote a papal encyclical (click to read about) against Nazism entitled Mit Brennender Sorge. If you think the stink about voting for pro-abortion John Kerry is big today, you should see the stink in the Church about Nazism and Communism as atheistic philosophies and politics. Please read this for a more objective view of Pius XII. This is the man that Hitler was quoted as saying "[Pius] is the only human being who has always contradicted me and who has never obeyed me."
Here's what infamous Joseph Goebbels had say about about the Catholic Church. His 26 March 1942 entry into his diary reads, "It's a dirty, low thing to do for the Catholic Church to continue its subversive activity in every way possible and now even to extend its propaganda to Protestant children evacuated from the regions threatened by air raids. Next to the Jews these politico-divines are about the most loathsome riffraff that we are still sheltering in the Reich. The time will come after the war for an over-all solution of this problem." (Lochner, The Goebbels Diaries, 1948, p. 146)
On a side note, Pope John Paul II fought hard against anti-semitism in pre-war Poland when he was a college student.
As fas as the rumors about the Jesuits go, I've seen similar conspiracy theories about the Knights of Columbus as operatives for the Vatican, if you can believe that. These rumors are also unfounded.
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 21, 2004.
Simon Sebag-Montefiore has written at length about the history of the last century. the truth of that history emerges slowly - even though it is recent - because documents only come to light as time rolls by.his conclusion - and he is a top historian and author - is that THE ONLY WORD-CLASS ORGANIZATION that opposed Stalin AND Hitler was the Catholic Church.
Roosevelt was known to admire Hitler. Churchill was known to admire Hitler and said so publicly. Pius XII is credited with saving over a huge number of Jewush lives.
read a book by an objective, educated historian and not some hate- filled trash that tells you what you would like to believe.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 21, 2004.
let me emphasise something that is very important:... THE ONLY WORD-CLASS ORGANIZATION that [FROM START TO END] opposed Stalin AND Hitler was the Catholic Church.."
other organisations, including countries, altered their views depending upon the political climate and outlook. in his defence Churchill did declare War after Poland, but he still admited Hitler. the US only went in after Pearl Harbour. Stalin's Russia had a deal with Hitler.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 21, 2004.
Actually, Pope Pius XI wrote the encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge. My bad.
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 21, 2004.
"Which would mean that it existed in the mind of every Christian on earth until the Protestant Rebellion."I find it interesting that those who wrote the New Testament make no mention of a Pope. Why is this the case Paul. Your contention that Peter was the first Pope is false.
"Can you honestly think that all Christians for the first 1,500 years after Christ were completely wrong on such a core issue?"
There has been no Christian who ever believed that the Pope was the head of the church. He may be the head of the Catholic Church but I can assure you he is not the head of the church that Christ built.
"Can you honestly think that a new doctrinal idea which originated only a few hundred years ago, through open rebellion against 1,500 years of constant Christian teaching, can have any real merit, or can be considered Christian in any sense?"
"3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables." (2 Timothy 4:3-4).
"Especially since the group which originated it have since constantly demonstrated their utter inability to define truth in any way that even they themselves can agree upon?"
The seed does resemble the tree if fell from doesn't it!!!
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 21, 2004.
"May God have mercy on your soul for the things you embrace about His Church."I can assure you Faith you have nothing to worry about. The Catholic Church is most certainly "not" His church.
Catholics claim to be Christians until you cast doubt on their Church and then the attacks fly. Here is only one example among many: "You are definately one twisted being..."
Jesus says in Matthew 5:44-45, "44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven..."
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 21, 2004.
Now if I can get everyone to STOP pickign on Faith... she isnt the onl oe that spews hatred and bile... silence the hate talk or the thread gets locked.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 21, 2004.
1: what ducks?2: Do I know either of you?
3: I dont pick on faith, I xdo, as modwerator, ask her to tone down the hostility, but I likewise asked Ian. I wasnt hostile myself.
4: Newcomers are wlecomed here.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.C OM), October 21, 2004.
KevinCasting doubts is one thing, flat out evil slander/liabel is very different. Anyway, you did the same thing when I presented my "possibilities" regarding Judas.
What would you do if I started in on your church of Christ with false accusations? Your church is the harlot depicted in Scriptures. Of course, you would challenge me to prove it. I could do the samething Faith has done--use false information against the Church. Who cares if the information is true? Most will get bent out of shape when attacked. It just so happens that I will voice my thoughts while others will not.
Zarove, I'd like to see the entire forum shutdown. I'd like to see a Great Flood and a subsequent "Rainbow" in the horizon. Even Max has spokened with forked tongue. On another thread, he calls the Catholic Church a "harlot". Max preached against hatred. While isolating me as his student, he forgets Faith and her tactics. Max needs to practice what he preaches. Don't go calling anyone's church a "harlot".
And as for our quacking little duck, duck season doesn't start quite yet, so play nice.
If people can't refrain from attacking each other's views while inflicting hatred towards the poster, shut it down.
....................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 22, 2004.
Rod,You wrote, "Casting doubts is one thing, flat out evil slander/liabel is very different. Anyway, you did the same thing when I presented my "possibilities" regarding Judas."
Please quote me where I ever made any type "evil slander or libel" in my posts to you??? If I am guilty, I will be quick to apologize. Cut and paste please...
You wrote, "What would you do if I started in on your church of Christ with false accusations?"
If so, then you ought to be able to prove it!!! I don't make an accusation without proof. Catholics on the other hand...
You wrote, "Your church is the harlot depicted in Scriptures. Of course, you would challenge me to prove it."
Yes, please do prove it Rod...!!!
You wrote, "I could do the samething Faith has done--use false information against the Church."
Have I used any "false information" against the Catholic Church??? Certainly not...
You wrote, "Who cares if the information is true? Most will get bent out of shape when attacked. It just so happens that I will voice my thoughts while others will not."
Instead of getting "bent out of shape" how about proving that the accusation is true. It is one thing to assert something and quite another thing to prove your assertions to be true.
"If people can't refrain from attacking each other's views while inflicting hatred towards the poster, shut it down."
This is what you want isn't it Rod??? To "shut it down"... There has been a constant Catholic presence on this board since it began and the Catholics do not like what is being taught here especially if it casts doubt upon their religion. This is what Catholics for centuries have tried to do for those who oppose their views, kill them (in the past) and now it is "shut it down"...
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 22, 2004.
No. Shut it down if people can't get along without the mud slinging. You also missed the part about a "Rainbow in the horizon". Getting "bent out of shape" has it's roots in the word repentance. I'm not saying that your church is evil. I'm saying that you would react a certain way and that people will go to the lengths of using false information to build an argument against the Church.Have you read my post about Judas?
..................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 22, 2004.
CValm diwn rod. Faith is Faith, and Ian is Ian...I eman i have had to put up with " thousands of millions" of protestant Chruches, and how bad potestants are, soem thinks are hard o take ut we bare it. But I do wish for more civility. Just everyone calm down, OK.
-- ZAROFF (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 22, 2004.
Zarove, I shall do as you say. It is really gonna hurt my tongue as I bite hard to keep from speaking. I may even need some reconstruction surgery, after all of this mess subsides to realign my facial expressions. But, I shall try my best............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 22, 2004.
Zarove--You surprise me.
Posting a question as I did about the Vatican Ratlines is hardly *spewing hatred* as you expressed it. If these things are true--and I believe they are--how is it hateful to want to open up the eyes of those caught up in such a religion?
Personally--I find your passiveness with *everyone*, just to be liked, to be a little *lukewarm* as Jesus would refer to it. You are either on fire for God and therefore the truth-- or not.
I continue to request that you prove I have posted anything even remotely uncivil or attacking in any personal way--or stop demanding that I be civil--when that is all I ever am.
Please post your proof that I am anything but civil, Zarove!!!!
I think you need to recognize the difference between someone posting truth as they see it., and someone attacking anyone on a personal level. Obviously in discussing religion there will be disagreements. But I never get in the dirt with anyone who wants to throw mud.
You need to recognize that about me.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 22, 2004.
rod-- And honest assesment will reveal that it is you who turns the tide in every debate by making it personal and emotional. You are the one who cannot stay on a topic--probably due to a lack of biblical knowledge-- and so you start flinging mud.I challenge you to find one post of mine--where I make it personal by going off-topic and attacking you or your person.
You won't find any!
You are the one shouting *fire* when there really isn't any. Try staying on a debate topic--rather than *taking* everything personal.
tHATS INCITEFUL fAITH, AND LACKS THE CHARITY OF CHIRST, AND I AGSIT BOARD RULES.
I am not blastign you for postign abouthhe ratlines, but for anoverall arrogant, smug, demeanign attetude. And its not just you, I got onto Ian for the same.
all I ask is for more consideration for the others who post here. This shoudn surprise you since as a Moderator I MUST enforce these policies.
So, disagree, post queastions, and debate all yo like, btu do so in a civil, conductie manner that doesn'r incite discord among regulars here.
I beelive in free speech, but also civil conduct, so you may express any idea,no matter how offensive to others it is, byt you may not express the ida in a way that is designed to cause anger and resentment, and is overall a diliberate mean to cuse ciscord among posters of this message baord.
Affogant bevhaviour, belittling and demeaning others, or beig disrespectful and rude , are all not to be tolerated on this board under my moderation.
Now I have warned you twice Faith, if you insist onc continuing I will be forced to post a thread to sanction you and list spacifc examples. I don wan tot do that as I do not wan t more disharmony, and woudl prefer you conrinue to post. I just ditn want the board rules violated.
Ian has calmed down, Rod is calming down, please follow this lea and calm down. Calming down isn the same as accepting their veiws, it just gets the boad back on track.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 22, 2004.
This is a laugh...Zarove--After driving me to the point where I need to defend myself--after all your accusations that you cannot prove--
The one post you try to use to prove your point is this last post of mine--made in my defense after-the-fact?
What a riot!
It is your opinion that this last post lacks the Charity of Christ.
There is a difference between being firm in your faith--pand being arrogant.
Jesus was hardly a push over., nor did he suck up to anyone who blasphemied the Word of God.
I know the forum rules Zarove--and I am well within them.., unless you want to prove your contention, I would appreciate it if you would let this go. I highly doubt that David would agree with you about this. After all--all one has to do is search the archives to see that David had far worse to say about the Catholic religion that anything I bring up!
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 22, 2004.
Faith, I took your latest comments, and I want this matter resolved now. Im not accusing, and hte reaon Im not proving thigns is that I dotn want to drag the issue out, nor do I wan tto spacificlaly finger point. I didnt drag spacificaly ian or rod's issues either, whom I also had ot get onto.I already told you it doesnt matter. if you think what your doign is OK, fine, but if you cross the line you will meet the consequences as I have no altenative.
As for your post , below I have edited it, to show you a difference.
Here is your origional again...
rod-- And honest assesment will reveal that it is you who turns the tide in every debate by making it personal and emotional. You are the one who cannot stay on a topic--probably due to a lack of biblical knowledge-- and so you start flinging mud. I challenge you to find one post of mine--where I make it personal by going off-topic and attacking you or your person.
You won't find any!
You are the one shouting *fire* when there really isn't any. Try staying on a debate topic--rather than *taking* everything personal. Here is a slughtly modified form, to shwo yoy a dufference. remmeber, is not what you saym but howm that is the matter here.
rod-- I honestly feel that you rely too heavily on emotionalism. I have seen you use emotional pleas and vdeer off topic soemtimes.I also feel that you have started some of this yourself. I challenge you to find one post of mine--where I make it personal by going off-topic and attacking you or your person.
You won't find any!
You are the one shouting *fire* when there really isn't any. Try staying on a debate topic--rather than *taking* everything personal.
See the difference of a few words? Your first few sentneces where harsh, judgemental, and sharp, and THAT is what is causign the friction on the board.
Its not the theology, neither is it the affiliation, nor is it some proonal problem of mine, its just that your own commens tend to be abrasive and cause escalation ocf hard feelings.
Aain, Faith, a Kind Answer turns away wrath, but Gfreivous words stir up strife. Thats what we are seeign here now.
All I ask is to be more minful of others feelings and thoguths in future. You may retain your own veiws and freely express them, hwoever, I must maintain the peace of the board and all I am askign is that you convey the thoguths and beleifs in a way that is less harsh on others, and less gratign on their nerves.
Look at it from my perspective if you will. I am a Moderator whose mission is to keep th epace of these boards. I MUST settle these matters, and the discussion was becomign heated beween you and Ian, and several others joiend in, due o your past conduct which has gotten to them. All i am doing is closign the matter, and askign that everyone perform in a way that is conssitant with Christ's teachings.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 22, 2004.
Again Zarove--I disagree with your opinion.I do not have to respond to unfounded accusation with pretty words.
rod has played this silly game for far too long.
I am direct--and it is not against the forum rules.
I have not attacked anyone personally--and unless you can prove that I have--I would appreciate an apology.
I don't need a lesson in kindness from you. I am the one being falsely accused. You say that you don't want to post proof because you don't want to drag this out--yet it is already dragged out.
Perhaps if you would post your proof--we could end it. Better yet-- admit you are wrong because there is no proof. That would end it quite nicely.
Don't forget that I was moderator for a long time here--and am no longer moderator because I stepped down. The reason I did so was due to the lack of control a moderator really has. If David was willing to allow such false witnessing as given by Elpidio--who rejects that Jesus is God and who uses this forum to falsely prophesied through his dreams--then surely my posts are well within an acceptable range.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 22, 2004.
AS noted, your views wherent the isue, your overpersonalising the psots, in the exampel to Rod, and your abraiveness where. And I offered to send you proof via Email. However, I relaly want hte issue drped. I have relaly no interest in dragging htis on, and ht ematter is closed. Deal with it OK? No lets all play nice.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 22, 2004.
You what?I never saw such an offer...
Email away Zarove. I want this so-called proof.
You can say it isn't the issues I raise that is the problem--but that is totally false. It is exactly what the problem is. rod doesn't like *what* I raise--not *how* I raise it.
Unless of course--you want to show me such a post where the *how* I said something was ever the problem....
And don't use these recent few posts--where I am frustrated over the false accusations...pick a post that supposedly brought this all up...
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 22, 2004.
Faith, you relaise it was Ian that brogth this all up, and I already got nto him...this sin all about you... your just the only oen still at it.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 22, 2004.
Well I was the only one falsely accused here...and dragged into it.And yes--I am still at it because I want you to prove that I belonged in your little group. I don't like being grouped in where I don't belong. I was never part of the ridiculous rantings that go on with rod or Ian--and I don't appreciate the public admonishments.
You need to prove your case or apologize, Zarove! I don't blame you for wanting to sweep this under the rug until the next time you want to say "Faith..cool it!!" for no reason at all. But I want this cleaned up--not swept under the rug.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 22, 2004.
Faith, dispite the fact that Ian initiated the arguent that lead tot he hostility, you engaged in it as well, this is why I called you on it. Do you even deny arguign with Ian and causign problems? If so re- read the thread. again, I was keepign the peace by contacting BOTH sides fo the debate and tellign both sides to ease off.If you dotn liek it, sorry. But I am not apologising for doing my ob here.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 23, 2004.
Again Zarove--please prove what you say.Here is what I find in this thread--and I am not guilty of anything here.
rod is the first to fly over the handle:
You are definately one twisted being, Faith. In one breath you warm up to Andy be saying how much of a nice guy he is, then you stabb him hard with your wicked dagger of Yellow Journalism. You post links to the smut that you haven't even investigated yourself as to it being realiable. This is the wickness you bring to the people here in this forum. You are just a little innocent person working for those who hate the Catholic Church, right? This is what I am talking about. This is what others have noted. Let's face it. You hate the Catholic Church and will do everything to defile the Church. You are not doing God's work. You are doing your work. Yes, you sweet innocent "who me" Faith. You say you don't want to hurt Andy--all Catholics. Bull, Barf, and Baloney. I now know who you truly are. Preach the good things about Catholicism. Preach those things that the Church has given you. Stop your hatred. I can envision you sitting by your monitor. Your devilish accomplishments are decorated with a smile that is just as wicked.
I dare you to prove what your links propogate.
May God have mercy on your soul for the things you embrace about His Church.
Please don't bother responding to me. I have never brought evil to your church.
.................
That came in response to my posting a question about if anyone had heard of the Vatican Ratlines? I was actually adressing Andy. And I added that I had always wondered if this stuff was true. Yet rod came out of left field and attacked me.
Then Kevin defended me :
"May God have mercy on your soul for the things you embrace about His Church." I can assure you, Faith, you have nothing to worry about. The Catholic Church is most certainly "not" His church.
Catholics claim to be Christians until you cast doubt on their Church and then the attacks fly. Here is only one example among many: "You are definately one twisted being..."
Jesus says in Matthew 5:44-45, "44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven..."
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 21, 2004.
There is nothing else before this that I am involved in in this thread..yet you saw fit to include me in your admonition--as though I had done something wrong:
Now if I can get everyone to STOP pickign on Faith... she isnt the onl oe that spews hatred and bile... silence the hate talk or the thread gets locked.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 21, 2004.
You say that I am not the only one spewing hatred--as though I had done so in the first place!! Please show the post where I spewed hatred!!!
The next thing that happens is that rod emotionally reacts because he has not understood my post about the Vatican Ratlines. He is mad that Kevin called him on his attack of me personally when he called me a twisted being:
Kevin Casting doubts is one thing, flat out evil slander/liabel is very different. Anyway, you did the same thing when I presented my "possibilities" regarding Judas.
What would you do if I started in on your church of Christ with false accusations? Your church is the harlot depicted in Scriptures. Of course, you would challenge me to prove it. I could do the samething Faith has done--use false information against the Church. Who cares if the information is true? Most will get bent out of shape when attacked. It just so happens that I will voice my thoughts while others will not.
Zarove, I'd like to see the entire forum shutdown. I'd like to see a Great Flood and a subsequent "Rainbow" in the horizon. Even Max has spokened with forked tongue. On another thread, he calls the Catholic Church a "harlot". Max preached against hatred. While isolating me as his student, he forgets Faith and her tactics. Max needs to practice what he preaches. Don't go calling anyone's church a "harlot".
And as for our quacking little duck, duck season doesn't start quite yet, so play nice.
If people can't refrain from attacking each other's views while inflicting hatred towards the poster, shut it down.
....................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 22, 2004.
I'm telling you Zarove--this is not something that I caused--I never attacked anyone personally. This is complete over-reaction on rod's part so far...and though he says that others, like me--are slinging mud and he wants the discussion shut down--the only one with the problem of mud-slinging appears to be rod.
Now Kevin rightly calls rod to the plate again...asking him to prove his unfounded allegations:
Rod, You wrote, "Casting doubts is one thing, flat out evil slander/liabel is very different. Anyway, you did the same thing when I presented my "possibilities" regarding Judas."
Please quote me where I ever made any type "evil slander or libel" in my posts to you??? If I am guilty, I will be quick to apologize. Cut and paste please...
You wrote, "What would you do if I started in on your church of Christ with false accusations?"
If so, then you ought to be able to prove it!!! I don't make an accusation without proof. Catholics on the other hand...
You wrote, "Your church is the harlot depicted in Scriptures. Of course, you would challenge me to prove it."
Yes, please do prove it Rod...!!!
You wrote, "I could do the samething Faith has done--use false information against the Church."
Have I used any "false information" against the Catholic Church??? Certainly not...
You wrote, "Who cares if the information is true? Most will get bent out of shape when attacked. It just so happens that I will voice my thoughts while others will not."
Instead of getting "bent out of shape" how about proving that the accusation is true. It is one thing to assert something and quite another thing to prove your assertions to be true.
"If people can't refrain from attacking each other's views while inflicting hatred towards the poster, shut it down."
This is what you want isn't it Rod??? To "shut it down"... There has been a constant Catholic presence on this board since it began and the Catholics do not like what is being taught here especially if it casts doubt upon their religion. This is what Catholics for centuries have tried to do for those who oppose their views, kill them (in the past) and now it is "shut it down"...
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 22, 2004.
I mean Zarove--I am searching in vain for the posts where I had any part in this on a personal level. You say it isn't about what I post-- but how I post it. I say you are mistaken. Can you please help me to find the posts of mine--where I am guilty as charged??
So then you respond like this:
CValm diwn rod. Faith is Faith, and Ian is Ian...I eman i have had to put up with " thousands of millions" of protestant Chruches, and how bad potestants are, soem thinks are hard o take ut we bare it. But I do wish for more civility. Just everyone calm down, OK.
-- ZAROFF (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 22, 2004.
At this point--I was hardly posting and I was perfectly calm.
It degenerates from this point on...and all the fuss is about how bad and rude I am with all my hate spewing. Yet--the only thing I did was ask a question about the Vatican Ratlines.
Come on Zarove--find the posts that prove I am guilty...please.
You said that Ian and I were causing problems--yet I don't see any problematic dialogue between Ian and myself at all...
I'll wait...........
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 23, 2004.
Faith, if you distance yourself form the situation for a monent and look at it, you will see your role in curent events more clearly...Ian started soem crap, I called him on it, Ian said you ewhre a bigot, and called ou rude, I roelied that that didnt matter and went withthe acucsations at face value to make a point, you took my words as an accusaiton, which they wherent mean tot be, and began this campaign to defend your Honour... all based on a rhetorical line of dialouge on my part that had no real interest in brignign you fully into it...
NOW you have piled a lot of post son the board to defend yourself, and others who had issue with you base don past deed son pther, unrelated threads, vented their anger at you, and yes they got out of hand, and tyoyu kept at it tryign to defend yourself.
If you stip tryign to defend yourself, from an accusaiton that I made that wasnt even a real acusaiton but a rhetorical one to prove to Ian a point, then the boar diwll clam down.
Now, everyone else, stop attakcign Faith.
Faith, stop defendign yourself, you make a mountian out of a Mole Hill.
Now, cease this useless bickering.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 24, 2004.
So, Faith, who holds the "keys" after the first key holders die?................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 24, 2004.
Again Za, WHO STARTED this thread? Rod. Directed to: Faith.
case proven.
-- world (not@of.this), October 24, 2004.
So I guess this is about as close as I am going to come to an apology for your wrongly accusing me of behavior I am not guilty of? You were just going along without really knowing if I was even guilty?You said:
Ian started soem crap, I called him on it, Ian said you ewhre a bigot, and called ou rude, I roelied that that didnt matter and went withthe acucsations at face value to make a point, you took my words as an accusaiton, which they wherent mean tot be, and began this campaign to defend your Honour... all based on a rhetorical line of dialouge on my part that had no real interest in brignign you fully into it...
I am sorry Zarove--but this is a half-baked attempt to avoid admitting you were wrong in your conclusions. I am not the one who is wrong here because I am demanding honesty and the truth to be told..
You never said that your posts about me were *rhetorical*..
But since you aren't big enough to admit that you falsely charged me and that you are sorry--I will have to settle for the fact that you at least admitted that you jumped on the *attack Faith bandwagon* without checking out the contents of my posts first--thereby wrongly condemning my character.
That will have to be good enough I suppose : (
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 24, 2004.
...bold..off?
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 24, 2004.