working4christtwo 4 dummies and otherr

View First Unread Thread Tools Search Thread Rate Thread Display
  #1

Today, 9:10 am

Randy Carson

Forum Master

Join Date: September 22, 2006

Location: Diocese of Raleigh

Posts: 12,956

Religion: Protestant Convert to Catholicism

Primacy but not Supremacy?

I’m not starting this thread to argue this topic with anyone. Instead, I want to listen to others give detailed answers to two questions:

  1. What exactly is the distinction between primacy and supremacy specifically as those terms are applied or denied with regard to the Bishop of Rome?
  2. Based upon Sacred Scripture alone, why, specifically, would Peter be said to have primacy but NOT supremacy?

(We can discuss the writings of the ECF’s at another time.)

Thanks in advance.

__________________
Tiber Swim Team – Class of ’79
I’m a Catholic. You have questions. Let’s get started.

“For an Evangelical Christian to become a Catholic is not to deny all that is good within his non-Catholic faith, but to embrace more.” Fr. Dwight Longenecker
“The same holds true for Orthodox Christians.” Randy Carson

  #2

Today, 11:40 am

Jon S

Regular Member

Join Date: May 9, 2013

Location: Diocese of Orange, USA

Posts: 4,637

Religion: Catholic (Easter Vigil 2014!)

Re: Primacy but not Supremacy?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randy Carson

I’m not starting this thread to argue this topic with anyone. Instead, I want to listen to others give detailed answers to two questions:

  1. What exactly is the distinction between primacy and supremacy specifically as those terms are applied or denied with regard to the Bishop of Rome?
  2. Based upon Sacred Scripture alone, why, specifically, would Peter be said to have primacy but NOT supremacy?

(We can discuss the writings of the ECF’s at another time.)

Thanks in advance.

In my view, since the Pope is subject to the teachings of the Magesterium, it would be erroneous to say he is supreme. The doctrine and dogma is supreme. The pope is prime in the magesterium which gives him the ability when called upon by the church to definitively decide something or to gather the bishops of the Magesterium and ratify their findings.

Going to Matt 18, in settling disputes, the final arbiter is the Pope. The pope may call the Magesterium to solve the dispute, but should that gridlock in some way, he can definitively decide the matter. Other matters may be so cut and dry he just declares it, as was done with the Marian dogmas.

I would imagine, both Acts 15 and John 20 can support this. In Acts 15, Peter demonstrates a primacy, but the idea came from another apostle James. In John 20 all the apostles receive the same gift of authority from Christ and then Jesus goes on to tell Peter alone to feed his sheep. This shows that Peter had a prime role but not necessarily a supreme roll.

Sometimes this may seem like semantics, but I guess depends on context and definitions.

__________________
“Opinion threads, I am starting to realize are vanity, and chasing after wind.” -StevenFrancis

  #3

Today, 1:55 pm

steve b

Senior Member

Join Date: June 27, 2004

Location: California

Posts: 7,747

Religion: Cradle Catholic

Re: Primacy but not Supremacy?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randy Carson

I’m not starting this thread to argue this topic with anyone. Instead, I want to listen to others give detailed answers to two questions:

  1. What exactly is the distinction between primacy and supremacy specifically as those terms are applied or denied with regard to the Bishop of Rome?
  2. Based upon Sacred Scripture alone, why, specifically, would Peter be said to have primacy but NOT supremacy?

(We can discuss the writings of the ECF’s at another time.)

Thanks in advance.

Using scripture alone, I’ve used this passage as an argument in the past for primacy and supremacy.. although I don’t use this passage alone to make those points

The following links are operational

Lk 22 24 A dispute φιλονεικία also arose among them, which of them was to be regarded as the greatest . 25 And he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. 26 But not so with you; rather let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader ἡγούμενος as one who serves. 27 For which is the greater, one who sits at table, or one who serves? Is it not the one who sits at table? But I am among you as one who serves.
28 “You are those who have continued with me in my trials; 29 as my Father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint for you 30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 31 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you,[d] that he might sift you[e] like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen στήρισον your brethren.”

Looking at those Greek words

  1. φιλονεικία people DO love to argue about authority
  2. ἡγούμενος and one of THEM is the leader.

Looking at the meaning behind the word leader, # 2 Leader = hegeomai

1. to lead,a. to go before;
b. to be a leader; to rule, command; to have authority over: a (royal) governor, viceroy, chief, controlling in counsel, the overseer or leader of Christian churches: official who leads”) carries important responsibility and hence “casts a heavy vote” (influence) – and hence deserve cooperation by those who are led
So who is it that holds this position over THEM? The only one Jesus refers to and prays for.
SIMON

And who backs Simon up through this so he doesn’t fail? JESUS.

And with all this authority that Jesus gives Peter, what does Jesus also ask of Peter?

στήρισον strengthen his brothers. stērízō (from stēringks, “a support that fixes, plants down”; akin to 2476 /hístēmi, “to stand,” having a duplication of the primitive Gk root/sta, “to make stand”) – properly, set fast (fix); give support to secure (firmly establish); solidly plant (which eliminates vacillation).

Adding all this up, looking at all the definitions behind the terms , it Sure looks like Jesus is establishing the papacy.

And because as leader, part of the definition(s) (above) is Peter deserves cooperation by those who are led by him, that makes his office, one of primacyand supremacy.

__________________
To doubt is the greatest insult to the Divinity.[St Padre Pio]

  #4

Today, 2:26 pm

Vico

Senior Member

Join Date: November 27, 2008

Location: U.S.A.

Posts: 7,558

Religion: Catholic

Re: Primacy but not Supremacy?

Defintion: magisterium (Modern Catholic Dictionary)
The Church’s teaching authority, vested in the bishops, as successors of the Apostles, under the Roman Pontiff, as successor of St. Peter. Also vested in the Pope, as Vicar of Christ and visible head of the Catholic Church. (Etym. Latin magister, master.)

Supreme magisterium, supreme shepherd and teacher:

Vatican I – Lumen Gentium 2525. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*)

And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter.To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)

But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.(45*) The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in view of their office and the importance of the matter, by fitting means diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents;(46*) but a new public revelation they do not accept as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.(47*)

__________________

  #5

Today, 3:39 pm

mamasaid

Trial Membership

Join Date: October 23, 2014

Posts: 1

Religion: once upon a catholic

Re: Primacy but not Supremacy– then and now

personally — i found the following info — reveiling becasue th author was not trying to promote a particular “world view”

Ancient Church Fathers: What the Disciples of the Apostles Taught

The Ancient Church Fathers reveals the disciples of the twelve apostles, and what they taught, from their own writings.

It documents that the same doctrine was faithfully transmitted to their descendants in the first few centuries.

It also describes where, when, and by whom, the doctrines began to change.

The ancient church fathers make it very easy to know for sure what the complete teachings of Jesus and the twelve apostles were.

You will learn, from their own writings, what the first century disciples taught about the various doctrines that divide our church today.

You will learn what was discussed at the Seven General Councils and why.

You will learn about the cults and cult leaders who began to change doctrine and spread their heresy.

And you will learn how those heresies became the standard teaching in the medieval church.

A partial list of doctrines the ancient church discussed are:

Abortion Animals sacrifices Antichrist Arminianism Bible or tradition Calvinism Circumcision Deity of Jesus Christ Demons Euthanasia Evolution False gospels False prophets Foreknowledge Free will Gnostic cults Homosexuality Idolatry Islam Israel’s return Jewish food laws

Mary’s virginity Mary’s assumption

Meditation The Nicolaitans Paganism Predestination premillennialism

Purgatory

Psychology Reincarnation Replacement theology

Roman Catholicism

The Sabbath Salvation Schism of Nepos Sin / Salvation The soul Spiritual gifts Transubstantiation Yoga Women in ministry

This book is brought to you by Biblefacts Ministries, Biblefacts.org

As an avid history buff, this book is so satisfying as it gets as close to eyewittnesses as possible. It should be used in any apologetics course taught or studied

in , my opinion, for that very reason. But more astonding than the clear and concise tracing of each father and topic

, truth and error, is a short couple of pages on an ancient document that is said to be a written response by Christ.

This,in fact. would be the only one!! Getting to read the circumstances and actual note was so very thrilling!! Why aren’t more scholars sharing that with others?

The author seems to go to great lengths to explain the steps he takes to uncover the origin of both the truth and error of our Christian faith.

The book is very clear in thought and very balanced in approach. The material speaks volumes as to how far our various churches may have strayed from the original teaching of our Lord. It is a great check up. It will definitely open eyes to many myths, traditions, and flase teachings that have crept into the church.

It is worth getting for anyone who believes it is better to study history by studying it from eyewittness accounts or close sources!

Advertisements

catholic answers forum 4 dummies –The answers have meandered away from the question Jose [and I] are considering. I’m not necessarily arguing against the pastoral role assigned to Peter.

Yesterday, 2:56 pm
Regular Member
Join Date: March 28, 2014
Posts: 1,111
Religion: protestant
Default Re: Lutherans: The King and the Royal Steward

Quote:
Originally Posted by Isaiah45_9 View Post
There is no need to undermine Church authority. And there is no need to add the descriptive: corporate to the councils. Unless you are also willing to call the Council at Jerusalem – corporate. Church Councils are indeed a model of what we see in Scriptures. The Episcopal model is indeed a model of what we see in Scriptures as well.

What I am arguing is entirely different from what you are saying. We are not partakers of the keys, those are for the Bishops who can bind and lose in unison with the Church. Like many like to point out, truth cannot contradict itself, the pillar and bulwark of truth is the Church. The Whole Church, not a single Bishop. That is my argument.

No , don’t want to undermine proper authority either, hence I said not withstanding offices, giftings. By corporate I mean as opposed to individual, as in ” formed into a unified body of individuals”. I suppose individuals consisting of elders, leaders of the brethren, yet including all brethren. But that is another discussion, but as the council at Jerusalem was, so be it…… As far as partakers of the keys, I like your scenario the best but I guess I am offering the fourth view , that it can also include those beyond presbyters, at least in a looser interpretation of that commission. I think you also see a presbyterian model shown in Scripture and first fathers. Anyways, thanks for the breath of fresh air you sometimes provide, making us all think. ( and now I see some of the heat you take for it but hopefully not for your post here).

Reply With Quote
  #228
Old Yesterday, 3:01 pm
Regular Member
Join Date: March 28, 2014
Posts: 1,111
Religion: protestant
Default Re: Lutherans: The King and the Royal Steward

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonNC View Post
Hi Randy.
Not exactly, as Don has responded to.

But even more concerning of this issue is not what Luther or Lutherans say about the keys and primacy, but what our Orthodox siblings say:

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute…well_peter.htm

The Orthodox are as keenly aware of any possible parallel between Peter and Eliakim. So, the issue of chief steward, regardless of agreement regarding it, has to do with what that means, first in the early Church, and now in the contemporary Church.

Jon

Good reading.Thanks

Reply With Quote
  #229
Old Yesterday, 3:58 pm
Randy Carson's Avatar
Forum Master
Join Date: September 22, 2006
Posts: 12,952
Religion: Protestant Convert to Catholicism
Default Re: Lutherans: The King and the Royal Steward

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonNC View Post
Hi Randy.
Not exactly, as Don has responded to.

But even more concerning of this issue is not what Luther or Lutherans say about the keys and primacy, but what our Orthodox siblings say:

They have a lot to lose in this, don’t they?

But let’s take a look…

Quote:
If these claims are true, then the Orthodox are the guilty party in the schism for not recognizing the supreme authority of the Pope, and must repent. If, on the other hand, it can be historically proven that the Bishop of Rome did not originally possess this power over the Church, but usurped it, then the Papacy is guilty of schism and must repent.

Okay. Sure. Like I said, they have a lot to lose.

Quote:
Below is an examination of the problems associated with these papal claims.

The first concern that Orthodox have with this premise has to do with the presupposition that Peter was the unique rock upon which the Church was built. The Orthodox Church sees the following…problems associated with this claim.

Jon, as you know, I have over two dozen quotes from Protestant scholars (and now a couple of Orthodox, also) acknowledging that Peter, alone, is the rock. If this is all they have to go on, then the rest of their argument is built on sand.

Quote:
First of all, although Peter was given the prominent role as the first of the apostles, he was always equal to the other apostles.

Jon, this is laughable, and you know it. Peter walks on water, Peter pays the temple tax (acting in the place of Christ – in persona Christi), Peter is mentioned 197 times (always first), Peter is told to strengthen his brothers, John waits to let Peter enter the tomb first, Peter is told to tend and care for the flock (as the vicarious shepherd of the one flock)…and on and on and on…

Quote:
Christ told the apostles that they would sit on twelve thrones (Matt. 19:28). A special throne was not set up for Peter.

A meaningless argument. All of the apostles were infallible individually and Peter was an apostle. However, the existence of other stewards does not preclude the existence of a chief.

Quote:
Moreover the “keys” were given to all the apostles (Matt. 18:18).

Perhaps the Orthodox need to brush up on their Greek, because there are no keys in that verse. You know that, too.

Quote:
The other apostles were also the foundation upon which the Church was built (Eph. 2:20). If the Roman view is to be believed, it is interesting to note that when the disciples disputed among themselves as to who would be the greatest, (Lk. 22:24-27), they seemed unaware that Christ had already picked Peter.

I can readily concede both of these points because they prove nothing. Remember, later, Jesus told Peter ALONE (the Greek is singular) to strengthen the others.

Quote:
Second, the Rock upon whom the Church is established is Christ. When Christ says, “Thou art Peter,” He called him “PETROS,” which means “small stone.” But when He says, “Upon this rock I will build my Church” the Greek term for rock is not Petros but “PETRA” which means “bedrock.” This bedrock which the Church is built upon was always understood by the Greek Fathers and many Western Fathers to mean either Christ Himself, or the profession of faith in Christ’s Divinity.

Jon, you know better than this. Boatloads of Protestant Greek scholars have demonstrated this to be false. This is Catholic Apologetics 101.

Quote:
Third, the patristic witness is that no Father of the Church has seen, in the primacy of Peter, any title of jurisdiction or absolute authority in Church government. The Latin Church Father, St. Ambrose, for instance, taught that Peter and Paul were equal: “It was proper that Paul should go to see Peter. Why? was Peter superior to him and to the other Apostles? No, but because, of all the Apostles, he was the first to be entrusted by the Lord with the care of the churches. Had he need to be taught, or to receive a commission from Peter? No, but that Peter might know that Paul had received the power which had also been given to himself.” (The Papacy, by Abbe Guettee, pp. 173-174).

First, it is unclear as to whether St. Ambrose, or Abbe Guettee’s own interpretation is being quoted here. Second, they argument conveniently forgets the fact that the Corinthians appealed NOT to John, a living apostle, but to Clement, the Royal Steward, concerning the problems they were having. Clement dealt with a matter outside of his own immediate diocese demonstrating his universal jurisdiction.

Quote:
Furthermore, he taught that Peter’s primacy was not one of honor or rank, but of faith and confession: “As soon as Peter heard these words, ‘Whom say ye that I am?’ remembering his place, he exercised this primacy, a primacy of confession, not of honour; a primacy of faith, not of rank.” (Ibid., p. 174).

Hmmm. Talk of primacy here…a little fuzzy on whether supremacy is excluded.

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute…well_peter.htm

Quote:
The Orthodox are as keenly aware of any possible parallel between Peter and Eliakim. So, the issue of chief steward, regardless of agreement regarding it, has to do with what that means, first in the early Church, and now in the contemporary Church.

Jon

And as yet, not one Orthodox in this forum has stepped up to prove me wrong.

I’m glad to see you are thinking about this, though. I hope you continue to do so…for obvious reasons.

__________________
Tiber Swim Team – Class of ’79
I’m a Catholic. You have questions. Let’s get started.

“For an Evangelical Christian to become a Catholic is not to deny all that is good within his non-Catholic faith, but to embrace more.” Fr. Dwight Longenecker
“The same holds true for Orthodox Christians.” Randy Carson


Last edited by Randy Carson; Yesterday at 4:16 pm.

Reply With Quote
  #230
Old Yesterday, 5:31 pm
guanophore's Avatar
Forum Elder
Prayer Warrior
Radio Club Member
Forum Supporter
Join Date: February 14, 2007
Posts: 27,225
Religion: καθολικός
Default Re: Lutherans: The King and the Royal Steward

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter J View Post
Very simple (emphasis added)? But the fact that the CCC has 1,000 pages or so might give a different impression.

He was questioning the gifts given to Peter for the care and feeding of the Church. It really is very simple.

I will stipulate, though, that the world in which we live is often not. Neither are the plethora of heresies that abound since the Reformation, so yes, the CCC is quite detailed in attempting to connect the 2000 years of scholarship and faith to the needs of the present day.

__________________
“The tradition of the Apostles has been made manifest throughout the world, and can be found in every Church by those who wish to know the truth.” — Irenaeus, writing about A.D. 189, on how the unity of the Church was based on the Apostolic Tradition everywhere handed down (paradosis).


Reply With Quote
  #231
Old Yesterday, 5:34 pm
Isaiah45_9's Avatar
Regular Member
Prayer Warrior
Book Club Member
Join Date: June 23, 2011
Posts: 3,796
Religion: Discerning
Default Re: Lutherans: The King and the Royal Steward

Quote:
Originally Posted by benhur View Post
No , don’t want to undermine proper authority either, hence I said not withstanding offices, giftings. By corporate I mean as opposed to individual, as in ” formed into a unified body of individuals”. I suppose individuals consisting of elders, leaders of the brethren, yet including all brethren. But that is another discussion, but as the council at Jerusalem was, so be it…… As far as partakers of the keys, I like your scenario the best but I guess I am offering the fourth view , that it can also include those beyond presbyters, at least in a looser interpretation of that commission. I think you also see a presbyterian model shown in Scripture and first fathers. Anyways, thanks for the breath of fresh air you sometimes provide, making us all think. ( and now I see some of the heat you take for it but hopefully not for your post here).

Gotcha, missed the notwithstanding.

Did you know the laity and the priests were involved in the selection of their Bishop in the early Church? Further, after the Great Schism the laity was involved in Papal elections as well, it didn’t last long before the selection process was limited to the College of Cardinals (something also absent for a thousand years ).

And yes, some dioceses had a presbyterian model. That’s why in one of the Councils the Church had to set boundaries for those models to remain within the area of responsibility of the overseeing See. Not a single See

Thanks for your kind words.

You know, Catholic apologetics tends to generalize (not all but a significant part) towards protestantism. And some of the accusations used (I know I have before ) are like a reflection of things we have done ourselves…

__________________

But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.Gal 3:25-26
Reply With Quote
  #232
Old Yesterday, 5:35 pm
guanophore's Avatar
Forum Elder
Prayer Warrior
Radio Club Member
Forum Supporter
Join Date: February 14, 2007
Posts: 27,225
Religion: καθολικός
Default Re: Lutherans: The King and the Royal Steward

Quote:
Originally Posted by steido01 View Post
The answers have meandered away from the question Jose [and I] are considering. I’m not necessarily arguing against the pastoral role assigned to Peter.

Where is the practice and proof of the universal, immediate jurisdiction of the Pope in the early Church? Why was this not “accepted by the sheep” until modern times, but now mandatory to believe for salvation?

Do you honestly believe that there were Christians who refused to be in communion with and obedient to Peter and the other Apostles?

Have you really not seen the writings in the early Church, where authenticity is centered around the Bishop?

These simple facts are what brought me back to the faith. I was at Ashbury Seminary and took an historical theology class. I realized that the early Church was Catholic, and had to reorganize my whole mentality about Bishops.

Where did anyone in the NT act with ministerial authority outside of the Apostles? Why would anyone not WANT to be in union with the successors of the Apostles?

__________________
“The tradition of the Apostles has been made manifest throughout the world, and can be found in every Church by those who wish to know the truth.” — Irenaeus, writing about A.D. 189, on how the unity of the Church was based on the Apostolic Tradition everywhere handed down (paradosis).


Reply With Quote
  #233
Old Yesterday, 7:08 pm
Peter J's Avatar
Veteran Member
Join Date: April 7, 2008
Posts: 10,222
Religion: non- Non-Catholic
Default Re: Lutherans: The King and the Royal Steward

Quote:
Originally Posted by benhur View Post
Good. I was thinking Jesus is the foreshadowed key keeper in Isaiah as House was saying . For sure Peter shared/was given the role as Randy points out . But as you say, it was others also. In fact we are all stones in that building, and even a foundation for others to go on top of us. Christ called all His disciples as friends, to be One with Him. We are to be disciples, even partakers of the keys, not withstanding offices and giftings. A disciple by definition does, imitates His Master. Peter definitely used the keys first and dramatically(Pentecost ect.) . However, the temptation must be resisted to institutionalize this partnership of God and the man Peter ( like Peter wanting to stay and memorialize the Transfiguration). The Church moves on, with many others doing dramatic entrances with their keys also.

Yes. (I have one in particular in mind, whom you may be familiar with. Took the name “Francis”. )

__________________
– Peter Jericho

“Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other”
– the Balamand Statement

Inklings group

Reply With Quote
  #234
Old Yesterday, 7:40 pm
Regular Member
Join Date: March 28, 2014
Posts: 1,111
Religion: protestant
Default Re: Lutherans: The King and the Royal Steward

Quote:
Originally Posted by Isaiah45_9 View Post
Gotcha, missed the notwithstanding.

Did you know the laity and the priests were involved in the selection of their Bishop in the early Church? Further, after the Great Schism the laity was involved in Papal elections as well, it didn’t last long before the selection process was limited to the College of Cardinals (something also absent for a thousand years ).

And yes, some dioceses had a presbyterian model. That’s why in one of the Councils the Church had to set boundaries for those models to remain within the area of responsibility of the overseeing See. Not a single See

Thanks for your kind words.

You know, Catholic apologetics tends to generalize (not all but a significant part) towards protestantism. And some of the accusations used (I know I have before ) are like a reflection of things we have done ourselves…

Thanks for info. What do apologists say about the disproportionate number of Italian cardinals, that exists to this day, and are not bishops beholden to papal office, for appointing them ? Does this have roots in friction with concilarism ?

randy carson catholic answers forum — Eastern Fathers of the Church Recognize The Rock and Crush the “Confession” Argument Peter is the Rock

Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #241
Old Today, 11:28 am
Randy Carson's Avatar
Forum Master
Join Date: September 22, 2006
Posts: 12,952
Religion: Protestant Convert to Catholicism
Default Re: Lutherans: The King and the Royal Steward

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonNC View Post
Second, the Rock upon whom the Church is established is Christ. When Christ says, “Thou art Peter,” He called him “PETROS,” which means “small stone.” But when He says, “Upon this rock I will build my Church” the Greek term for rock is not Petros but “PETRA” which means “bedrock.” This bedrock which the Church is built upon was always understood by the Greek Fathers and many Western Fathers to mean either Christ Himself, or the profession of faith in Christ’s Divinity.

Jon

Always, Jon?

Eastern Fathers of the Church Recognize The Rock and Crush the “Confession” Argument
Peter is the Rock

Tatian the Syrian (AD 170)

“Simon Kephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Rock, and on this Rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it” (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).

Tertullian (AD 220)

“Was anything hid from Peter, who was called the Rock, whereon the Church was built; who obtained the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the power of loosing and of binding in heaven and on earth?” (Tertullian, De Praescript Haeret).

Tertullian thereafter writes to criticize Pope Callistus I by saying ….”I now inquire into your opinions, to see whence you usurp the right for the Church. Do you presume, because the Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church …[Matt 16-19]’ that the power of binding and loosing has thereby been handed over to you, that is, to every church akin to Peter? What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when He conferred this personally on Peter? ‘On you,’ He says, ‘I will build my Church; and I give to you the keys’….” (Tertullian, On Modesty 21:9-10)

St. Gregory Nazianzus

“See thou that of the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and deserving of the choice, one is called a Rock and entrusted with the foundations of the Church.” (Gregory Naz., T. i or xxxii). … and “Peter, the Chief of the disciples, but he was a Rock (Gregory Naz., T. ii.) …and … “[Peter], that unbroken Rock who held the keys.” (Gregory Naz., Sect. ii Poem Moral. tom. ii.)

St. Gregory of Nyssa

“Peter, with his whole soul, associates himself with the Lamb; and, by means of the change of his name, he is changed by the Lord into something more divine. Instead of Simon, being both called and having become a Rock, the great Peter did not by advancing little by little attain unto this grace, but at once he listened to his brother (Andrew), believed in the Lamb, and was through faith perfected, and, having cleaved to the Rock, became himself Peter.” (Gregory of Nyssa, T. i. Hom. xv. in C. Cantic). …and …. “Peter …that most firm Rock, upon which the Lord build His Church.” (Gregory of Nyssa, Alt. Or. De. S. Steph.)

St. Basil the Great

“The house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the foundations of which are on the holy mountains, for it is built upon the Apostles and prophets. One also of these mountains was Peter, upon which Rock the Lord promised to build His Church.” (Basil, T. i. Comment. in Esai. c. ii.). …and …. “The soul of blessed Peter was called a lofty Rock …” (Basil, Sermon 1 De Fide I.13).

St. John Chrysostom

“…and when I name Peter, I name that unbroken Rock, that firm foundation, the Great Apostle, the First of the disciples …” (Chrysostom, T. ii. Hom. iii. de Paednit). …and …. “Peter, the leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church.” (Chrysostom, In illud. hoc Scitote). and …. “Peter, … that Pillar of the Church, the Buttress of the Faith, the Foundation of the Confession.” (Chrysostom, T. iii. Hom. de Dec. Mill. Talent)

__________________
Tiber Swim Team – Class of ’79
I’m a Catholic. You have questions. Let’s get started.

“For an Evangelical Christian to become a Catholic is not to deny all that is good within his non-Catholic faith, but to embrace more.” Fr. Dwight Longenecker
“The same holds true for Orthodox Christians.” Randy Carson

Reply With Quote
  #242
Old Today, 11:49 am
Randy Carson's Avatar
Forum Master
Join Date: September 22, 2006
Posts: 12,952
Religion: Protestant Convert to Catholicism
Default Re: Lutherans: The King and the Royal Steward

In a previous post, I mentioned the parallel between Peter and Joseph in Egypt.

One point I neglected to highlight is that Joseph came to the attention of the Pharoah because he was able to answer Pharaoh’s question with insight given to him by God. But guess what? Peter came to Jesus’ attention because of insight revealed by God.

So, not only was God directly involved with both Joseph and Peter receiving the office of Royal Steward in their respective kingdoms, but He was directly responsible for both of them being able to answer the question put to them by their respective kings as well.

Thus, Jesus mirrored not only the words of Isaiah but also the actions of Pharaoh in establishing Peter as His Royal Steward.

__________________
Tiber Swim Team – Class of ’79
I’m a Catholic. You have questions. Let’s get started.

“For an Evangelical Christian to become a Catholic is not to deny all that is good within his non-Catholic faith, but to embrace more.” Fr. Dwight Longenecker
“The same holds true for Orthodox Christians.” Randy Carson

Reply With Quote
  #243
Old Today, 12:01 pm
Junior Member
Join Date: May 8, 2014
Posts: 980
Religion: Orthodox
Default Re: Lutherans: The King and the Royal Steward

I see the quote mine apologetics is still going strong. I will say for a group that always says “truth is not up for a vote” you guys sure are fond of tabulating quotes to support your position. Well, 15 fathers say x, and 20 say y ,so obviously y is true.
__________________
“Do not deceive yourself with idle hopes that in the world to come you will find life If you have not tried to find it in this present world.” – Theophanis the Monk
Reply With Quote
  #244
Old Today, 12:07 pm
Randy Carson's Avatar
Forum Master
Join Date: September 22, 2006
Posts: 12,952
Religion: Protestant Convert to Catholicism
Default Re: Lutherans: The King and the Royal Steward

Gleanings from a Quiet Afternnoon with Google

THEODORET OF CYR

“This most holy See has preserved the supremacy over all Churches on the earth, for one especial reason among many others; to wit, that it has remained intact from the defilement of heresy. No one has ever sat on that Chair, who has taught heretical doctrine; rather that See has ever preserved unstained the Apostolic grace.” (Epistle 116 to Renatus).

JOHN CHRYSOSTOM

“For what purpose did He shed His blood? It was that He might win these sheep which he entrusted to Peter and his successors.” (De Sacerdotio, 53)

“Peter himself the chief of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received a revelation not from man, but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him, saying, ‘Blessed are thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and bone hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven’; this very Peter, – and when I name Peter, the great Apostles, I name that unbroken rock, that firm foundation, the great Apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called and the first who obeyed.” (Homily 3 de Poenit. 4)

BASIL THE GREAT

“When we hear the name of Peter, that name does not cause our minds to dwell on his substance, but we figure to our minds the properties that are connected with him. For we at once, on hearing that name, think of the son of him that came Bethsaida, Andrew’s brother; him that was called from amongst fishermen unto the ministry of the Apostleship; him who on account of the pre-eminence of his faith received upon himself the building of the Church.” (Adv. Eunom. 4)

“One of these mountains was Peter, upon which rock the Lord promised to build His Church (Comm. in Esai 2,66)

“It seemed to me to be desirable to send a letter to the bishop of Rome, begging him to examine our condition, and since there are difficulties in the way of representatives being sent from the West by a general synodial decree, to advise him (the bishop of Rome) to exercise his personal authority in the matter, choosing suitable persons to sustain the labours of a journey, – suitable, too, by gentleness and firmness of character, to correct the unruly among us here.” (Letter 69 to Anathasius, NPNF2 8:165)

Why does Basil appeal to the personal authority of the Bishop of Rome over a matter in Basil’s jurisdiction?

__________________
Tiber Swim Team – Class of ’79
I’m a Catholic. You have questions. Let’s get started.

“For an Evangelical Christian to become a Catholic is not to deny all that is good within his non-Catholic faith, but to embrace more.” Fr. Dwight Longenecker
“The same holds true for Orthodox Christians.” Randy Carson

Reply With Quote
  #245
Old Today, 12:24 pm
Isaiah45_9's Avatar
Regular Member
Prayer Warrior
Book Club Member
Join Date: June 23, 2011
Posts: 3,794
Religion: Discerning
Default Re: Lutherans: The King and the Royal Steward

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Carson View Post
Why does Basil appeal to the personal authority of the Bishop of Rome over a matter in Basil’s jurisdiction?

Calling the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea:


Canon 6:

The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome.Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved. In general the following principle is evident: if anyone is made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, this great synod determines that such a one shall not be a bishop. If however two or three by reason of personal rivalry dissent from the common vote of all, provided it is reasonable and in accordance with the church’s canon, the vote of the majority shall prevail.

So Basil, Bishop of Caesarea, appealed to the Bishop of Rome for support.

__________________

But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.Gal 3:25-26
Reply With Quote
  #246
Old Today, 12:27 pm
Isaiah45_9's Avatar
Regular Member
Prayer Warrior
Book Club Member
Join Date: June 23, 2011
Posts: 3,794
Religion: Discerning
Default Re: Lutherans: The King and the Royal Steward

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphim73 View Post
I see the quote mine apologetics is still going strong. I will say for a group that always says “truth is not up for a vote” you guys sure are fond of tabulating quotes to support your position. Well, 15 fathers say x, and 20 say y ,so obviously yis true.

Right… Ironic to use a Democratic system to support a Monarchy

__________________

But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.Gal 3:25-26
Reply With Quote
  #247
Old Today, 2:26 pm
Randy Carson's Avatar
Forum Master
Join Date: September 22, 2006
Posts: 12,952
Religion: Protestant Convert to Catholicism
Default Re: Lutherans: The King and the Royal Steward

Quote:
Originally Posted by Isaiah45_9 View Post
Canon 6:

The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved. In general the following principle is evident: if anyone is made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, this great synod determines that such a one shall not be a bishop. If however two or three by reason of personal rivalry dissent from the common vote of all, provided it is reasonable and in accordance with the church’s canon, the vote of the majority shall prevail.

So Basil, Bishop of Caesarea, appealed to the Bishop of Rome for support.

Just as Jesus said to Peter, “Strengthen your brothers.” But there’s more:

This canon teaches that as per “ancient custom,” there have been three major Sees, each retaining certain jurisdictions. The main ‘controversy’ surrounding Canon 6 is whether it is envisioning a ‘trio of Patriarchs’ rather than a Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Preferring the former interpretation are obviously the Protestants [2] and the Eastern Orthodox. While a quick reading seems to lend weight to the the former reading, a more careful second look reveals that is not the case. Informed Catholics throughout the ages have pointed to a few key details as to why any reading other than that of Papal Primacy doesn’t work.

First of all, from a grammatical point of view, the Canon says nothing about a jurisdiction in reference to the Bishop of Rome. Thus, the idea that Alexandria governs Egypt and Libya, while the Bishop of Rome governs some “Roman” land like Italy is projected onto the Canon, effectively putting words into it’s mouth. This does not prove the Roman primacy, but it does help to remind us that this Canon does not deny a Roman primacy either, since no “Roman territory” is explicitly mentioned.

Second, in terms of the Canon making a logical argument, an interpretation that renders the Canon something to the effect, “Let the Bishop of Alexandria rule Egypt since it is customary for the Bishop of Rome to rule Italy” is a non-sequitur fallacy. In other words, it’s irrelevant if the Bishop of Rome governs Italy, since that says nothing about who should rule elsewhere and especially what land they should govern. The same can be said if it is taken to mean “since it is customary for the Bishop of Rome to be a Patriarch,” which brings out the logical fallacy all the more. For a Council that just got done addressing one of the most pernicious heresies of all time, including using precise and deliberate language for the Creed, we should expect a far more reasonable argument in Canon 6 than what Protestants and Eastern Orthodox have to offer.

If Canon 6 excludes some kind of “territory of Italy” over which Rome has primacy, what is the correct interpretation? The Catholic interpretation understands the Canon as follows:

“Let the Bishop of Alexandria continue to govern Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, since assigning this jurisdiction is an ancient custom established by the Bishop of Rome and reiterated now by this Nicene Council.”

All of the sudden, this Canon has some “teeth”. The appeal of the Council is to an ancient custom, which surely must have originated on some solid basis (i.e. not accepted simply “because it’s old”), and this basis is none other than the delegation of the Bishop of Rome. Without question, only the Catholic interpretation of this Canon satisfies the intellect and confirms the Faith, especially when we look at it in the context of the Canons of the councils immediately following Nicaea which sought to expound upon Canon 6.

__________________
Tiber Swim Team – Class of ’79
I’m a Catholic. You have questions. Let’s get started.

“For an Evangelical Christian to become a Catholic is not to deny all that is good within his non-Catholic faith, but to embrace more.” Fr. Dwight Longenecker
“The same holds true for Orthodox Christians.” Randy Carson

working4christtwo I heard you comment on a question by a listener about how a number of Catholics are leaving the Mass because it is “boring” and are flocking to the more “entertaining” Protestant services.

  1. Leo SanchezNovember 3, 2013 at 11:02 pm
    I heard you comment on a question by a listener about how a number of Catholics are leaving the Mass because it is “boring” and are flocking to the more “entertaining” Protestant services. Your explanation of how the Mass was indeed more than what most Catholics understand was an excellent answer and I have been unable to find it in the archives.
    I have a son and a nephew who have issues with this question and need some help in answering both of them.
    Can you locate this program and answer? I also remember that you said some services actually hire a program director for the “entertainment” portion of their services. The singing and sometimes plays are really programmed to lure the weak in faith to these services which cannot come near offering what the Catholic Mass offers…..in particular the Eucharist.
    Hope you can answer me and help me with this discussion with my son and nephew.
    Thanks and God Bless
    Leo

    Reply
    1. ucantfixstupidOctober 23, 2014 at 9:57 pm

      Your comment is awaiting moderation.

      what do you mean??? the catholic mass — is boring becasue there is not spiritual anointing

      get real– it would be nice or Great– if you received a spiritual impartation — by going to a catholic mass–

      just like there are many non catholics — ministers who are not “anointed” by the Jesus and the Holy Spirit–

      but at least in those church assemblies — they are allowed spiritual decernment–

      to acknowledge the lack of spiritual impartation— not so at a catholic mass–
      you have to put up with the lack — of ministry spiritual anointing- or you might get a “mortal sin”

      and be a taker of the “real supernational presence” of the maraculas transsubstanation–

      Jesus sent me to study at bible colleges — where the real spiritual presence is–

      and met ministers who carried the anointing — catholic — not –so –much

      Reply
  2. Peter BibboNovember 18, 2013 at 2:29 am
    I have read all your articles in One Voice this year, and frequently told myself, “I have to tell this guy how much I appreciate his writing.” So here at the conclusion of the Year of Faith, I’ve finally gotten around to it. Thank you. You are in my view an evangelist as well as a personal inspiration. I grew up an lived most of my life in the northeast, and I’ve traveled all over the world, attending Mass in numerous countries, but my sense of Catholicism is naturally rooted in the U.S. I can identify with Catholics who find the Mass “boring” but that has always been an irrelevant term for me. I wasn’t looking for entertainment. My difficulty was that the Mass was unfulfilling. I still recall back in the day when the congregation prayed to the celebrant’s haircut a sermon about nickles. Nickles were no longer welcome in the collection basket. Dimes as a minimum, quarters on average were required. I believe it was Vatican II that exhorted the importance of homily, and that only ordained could deliver one. About 30 years later, I began to sense that homily was beginning to be a more fulfilling part of the Mass and I was grateful whenever a priest or deacon made an attempt to deliver a relevant and actionable teaching. I just pray it doesn’t take our Church another 30 years to get to the next level, whatever that may be.

    Reply
  3. Ken SponburgNovember 27, 2013 at 5:39 pm
    David,

    I was baptized Catholic at a 11 and left the Church at 15 for Protestantism. I returned 5 years ago but my faith is weak. How does one know if the Catholic Church is true? How do you find out? Catholics say read the Church Fathers but some Protestants claim they teach Protestantism and some Protestants say they were heretics. How do you know for sure?

    Reply
    1. Ed GravelineDecember 24, 2013 at 7:37 pm
      Ken,
      Here is how you know it is the true Church. Jesus lived for 33 years and told EVERYTHING to his Apostles. Not everything was put in the Bible, because there was no Bible in the first 300 years after Christ. In fact, the last line of the Gospel of John says that all the books of the world could not contain all that Jesus did. So, what Jesus said to the Apostles, those Apostles went out and had people follow them closely. These people are known as the Early Church Fathers. And they wrote everything the Apostles said down. And we can read it today. It tells us that there are 7 sacraments. They wrote that there are confessing of sins to a priest. They wrote there is the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The wrote that the Bishop of Rome is in charge of the Church. In 107 AD, one of them wrote that the Church Jesus started is called “Catholic”. And the list goes on.

      Reply
    2. Stephen Abao OlarioDecember 30, 2013 at 2:15 am
      David, maybe the weakening of your faith may not be because of lack of understanding in the Church and her Teachings but maybe coming from another source? Try to look in your psycho-emotional needs too? Maybe there is another need that longs satisfaction and Religion may not be the answer? Just thinking? I pray for you, amen! Happy new year! :)

      Reply

working4christtwo — Answering Hitchens: What Can Faith Do?

Answering Hitchens: What Can Faith Do?

Before his death, atheist Christopher Hitchens wrote a best-selling book attacking religious belief.  It had the provocative title God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Hitchens promoted the book throughout the world by debating with religious believers of many types: Christians, Jews, Moslems, and Hindus.   In these debates, he would often challenge his opponent, “Name one moral action performed by a believer that could not have been done by a nonbeliever.”  Hitchens claimed no one ever met this challenge.

Hitchens

My favorite humorous response to Hitchens came from Protestant minister Doug Wilson. When Hitchens asked him to name one moral act only believers can do Wilson replied, “Tithe.”  But more seriously, Hitchens assumed – like many secular thinkers – that the only good is the good of social or material progress. An atheist can ladle soup in a soup kitchen –same as a Christian– so Christianity must not bring anything to the table.  Even worse, for Hitchens, is the fact that people can do a lot of harm in the name of religion that they might not do otherwise. (Hence his book’s subtitle.)

I have to admit that I was never very impressed by Hitchens argument because I never accepted the unstated premise. It’s just not true that soup ladles are the sole measure of value. Catholicism, in particular, for all its good works and charity, has always rejected the idea that religion should aim for Utopia in this world or that it exists only to promote material wellbeing. “The Church is not an NGO,” as Pope Francis says frequently.

Perhaps this is why Hitchens hated Mother Theresa so much. (He wrote viciously about her.) He understood her mission better than many. He knew that her main goal was not social work, but mysticism. “We are misunderstood, we are misrepresented, we are misreported,” Mother Theresa said. “We are not nurses, we are not doctors, we are not teachers, we are not social workers.  We are religious, we are religious, we are religious.”

Mother Theresa knew (and struggled with the fact) that the greatest value of religious faith in this life is not material wellbeing, but the gift of transcendent hope. That’s something a believer can give that Hitchens can never give. In a debate with Rabbi David Wolpe, Hitchens once said, “I think despair is quite a good starting point myself . . . Those who offer [hope] to me, I spurn the gift. I don’t want what you want. I don’t want the feeling of an eternal love and peace. Love and peace, very, very overrated in my view.”

Hitchens is just flat wrong here, of course. Faith, hope, and love are precisely the formula for happiness even in the midst of material deprivation.  “I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord,” Paul said. (Philippians 3:8)  When St. Josephine Bakhita reflected on her life of horrific suffering she could say, ““I am definitively loved and whatever happens to me—I am awaited by this Love. And so my life is good.”

But even if nonbelievers do good things, there is still no reason to conclude that unbelief is the best stance for advancing material and social wellbeing. Fr. Richard Neuhaus, a long-time crusader for the important role of religion in public life once argued (I think correctly), “It is empirically probable and logically persuasive that human development is best advanced by transcendent hope.”  The fact is that atheists don’t ladle as much soup as Catholics.  It was the Catholic Church that invented the modern institutions of benevolence precisely because Catholics believe in the transcendent dignity of human beings.

What of Hitchens’s charge that people can do evil things in the name of religion that they wouldn’t do otherwise?  This is obviously true of religion, just as it is obviously true of secular ideology. All ideology is subject to abuse and manipulation, which one reason why the Catholic Church (unlike Islam and some forms of Protestantism) does not propose a specific juridical order derived from revelation. The Church cannot and does not replace the state, but must “play her part through rational argument.” Pope Benedict also said, “she has to reawaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper.” (Pope Benedict, Deus Caritas Est)

What good can a believer do that a nonbeliever cannot do? Only a believer can offer transcendent hope.  Only a believer can propose or work for a social order grounded in the transcendent dignity of the human person. Only a believer can say, “I am definitively loved and whatever happens to me—I am awaited by this Love. And so my life is good.”

Post navigation

3 thoughts on “Answering Hitchens: What Can Faith Do?”

  1. Aaron TheisSeptember 19, 2014 at 11:36 am
    Great article Mr. Anders. I’ve heard your conversion story on EWTN and I’m inspired by your transformation of faith. I would really like to ask you a couple of questions so if you could please email me at your earliest convenience I’d be most appreciative.
    God bless,
    Aaron

    Reply
  2. Art Sippo MDOctober 12, 2014 at 10:59 pm
    Nicely done. What Mr. Hitchens seemed to miss is that the great contributions of the Catholic faith to the world included the hospital, the university, graduate education, nursing, charitable care of the poor, and religious education all of which point beyond themselves to the transcendent hope of which you speak. The secular world usurps and apes these contributions but in doing so they lose the poignancy that their original invention engendered. It is always possible to parasitically take only certain parts of a good idea and abstract them from reality without giving props to the genealogy from which it derived. Thus Hitchen’s hatred of Mother Theresa. The core values he wanted to find in her work were not there. He could not abstract any sensible purpose to what she was doing. It was his narrow-mindedness and bigotry that did not allow her to have an agenda other than the one HE found to be of value.

    Reply
  3. ucantfixstupidOctober 23, 2014 at 9:45 pm

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    i did find this part interesting
    Perhaps this is why Hitchens hated Mother Theresa so much. (He wrote viciously about her.) He understood her mission better than many. He knew that her main goal was not social work, but mysticism. “We are misunderstood, we are misrepresented, we are misreported,” Mother Theresa said. “We are not nurses, we are not doctors, we are not teachers, we are not social workers. We are religious, we are religious, we are religious.”

    but i do wonder why you don’t function in the 9 gifts defined by saint paul and demenstrated by

    ublished on Jan 3, 2014
    Rev. Jesse Duplantis shares how Jesus Christ transformed him from a cold-hearted 1970s rock musician into the passionate evangelist some have dubbed “The Apostle of Joy”.

    http://youtu.be/EID6AQeDjsY

    as most catholics do not function in any of the spiritual gifts–

    Reply

working4christtwo Question: “How do we atone for sins?”

Question: “How do we atone for sins?”

Hi Patrick,

How do we atone for the sin that we have committed? How does a none Catholic deal with this? How does a Catholic deal with this? I plan on official becoming Catholic this coming Spring but that doesn’t take care of NOW. If I die today, (crossing the street) will God take into account that I was trying to become Catholic and doing what needs to be done or will it not help at all? Do I need to see Fr. Edmond Kline, (Sacred Heart Catholic Church in Halstead) now and beg him to bring me into the Church today or can I wait till Spring?

Thank you for your help,

__________

You ask such beautiful and profound questions. THANKS!

Be at peace; the sincere desire to enter in the Church that Christ Founded, is in emergencies, the same as actually having accomplished that goal. So you’re covered.

Wait until RCIA, which is the normal, and required, manner for entry into the RCC. What I’m sharing with you is FAR more complete and thorough than what you will get there, even in a really good RCIA program, because in GREAT part I no longer have the time restrictions, the course faces. Usually RCIA runs from August {Back to School} to Easter, BUT the Pastor can change that schedule; even though EASTER is the best and most significant time to enter into the True Church of Christ.  … My program is a supplemental to RCIA, {that in my humble opinion; every RCIA member ought to take}.

Christ while on earth Instituted Seven Sacraments: {1} Baptism, {2} Eucharist, {3} Confirmation, {4} Confession /Reconciliation/ Penance, {5} Marriage, {6} Holy Orders, and {7} the Last Rites.

Betsy be SURE that Father Kline and the office {priest are super busy and may forget} is aware that you desire to be in the next RCIA Class. Just get a Sunday bulletin which will have all the contact information you need.

As an aside here: Once you enter into the RCIA program, please continue to ask me questions that may come up.

{A} -“SACRAMENT. A sensible sign, instituted by Jesus Christ, by which invisible grace and inward sanctification are communicated to the soul. The essential elements of a sacrament of the New Law are institution by Christ the God-man during his visible stay on earth, and a sensibly perceptible rite that actually confers the supernatural grace it symbolizes. In a broad sense every external sign of internal divine blessing is a sacrament. And in this sense there were already sacraments in the Old Law, such as the practice of circumcision. But, as the Council of Trent defined, these ancient rites differed essentially from the sacraments of the New Law, they did not really contain the grace they signified, nor was the fullness of grace yet available through visible channels merited and established by the Savior. (Etym. Latin sacramentum, oath, solemn obligation; from sacrare, to set apart as sacred, consecrate.)” From Father Hardon’s Catholic Distionary”. … Father was a Mentor to me

Five of these Sacrament’s hold the potential to accomplice in differing manners and degrees what you ask about.

  1. Sin are forgiven in the manner specified and desired by Christ {God} in each of the following Sacraments:
  2. {1} Which can as a Christian be received only one time. I assume you have been Baptized with water in the names of the Blessed Trinity? Mt. 28: 19-20“Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” And John 3:5  If you either have not been Baptized, it will be part of the RCIA Initiation Process. Father will ask you for “proof” of your Baptism and having mom’s testimony will be sufficient. If there are any doubts, you will be “re-baptized” conditionally {on the assumption that you may or many-not have been Baptized previously.

Sacramental Baptism removes BOTH All prior sins as well as ALL of the effects {“Temporal Punishment caused by those sins”}. So that if one should die after Baptism and have committed no further sin; such a Soul, being perfected like Christ can enter directly into heaven and the Beatific Vision.

 {2} Sacramental Confession/ Reconciliation/ Penance {all three terms while having slightly different meanings, apply correctly to this particular Sacrament.

Of all of the bible supported teachings; this is among the most critical, and most significant to one’s Salvation hopes, missed, not understood and wrongly treated by the Protestant community. And how very sad that is. Because Protestants presume a right not granted to them, and therefore not accepted by God** They presume to tell God how “H will” forgive their sins, rather than humbly listening to Christ Himself tell US how He will actually accomplish this task.

“Confession” This is the oldest and most common term for this sacrament which too was directly instituted by Christ. John 20:1-23 “Now when it was late that same day, the first of the week, and the doors were shut, where the disciples {Apostles} were gathered together, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them: Peace be to you. And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord, He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. {This means exactly what it says here: Christ gives to the Apostles, and through them His Church [singular] his own Godly Powers and Authority: READ Mt, 10:1-8 if in doubt} When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. [23] Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.”

Heb.5 Verses 1 to 6  “For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. He can deal gently with the ignorant and wayward, since he himself is beset with weakness. Because of this he is bound to offer sacrifice for his own sins as well as for those of the people. And one does not take the honor upon himself, but he is called by God, just as Aaron was.”   John.15: 16 “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide; so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.”

James 5:16 “Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful”

Matt.9 : 6 “But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” — he then said to the paralytic — “Rise, take up your bed and go home.” [8] When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God,who had given such authority to men. “  … See Mt. 10:1-8

Matt.10: 1And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every infirmity” {both physical and spiritual}

Acts 17: 30 “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, [Jesus the Christ] and of this he has given assurance to all men by raising him from the dead.”

James 4: 7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. 8 Draw near to God and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you men of double mind.” All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him”

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 Jn. 1: 9

Mt. 7: 21 “Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.”

“I acknowledged my sin to thee, and I did not hide my iniquity; I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the LORD”; then thou didst forgive the guilt of my sin”. Psalm 32:5

“I confess my iniquity, I am sorry for my sin”. Psalm 38: 18

  • The term “confession” refers precisely to the process that is an absolute need to confess our sins, personally and directly to a Catholic priest who has been chosen by Christ and empowered by Christ, to in HIS NAME, and with God’s own Power’s and Authority , determine IF ones sin ought to be, or ought NOT to be forgiven. It remains Christ who does it; BUT on the condition that the Catholic Priest gives God his permission, as the holder of all of the keys to heaven, granted to him by Christ, to forgive or not to forgive our sins. QUOTE: “When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them:John 20:22-23Receive ye the Holy Ghost. [23] Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.”

“Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed.” James 5: 16

“Do not be ashamed to confess your sins”, Sir. 4:26

“When a man is guilty in any of these, he shall confess the sin he has committed” Lev. 5:5

he shall confess his sin which he has committed; and he shall make full restitution for his wrong Num. 5:7

“And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” Mt. 19: 17

Jn 20: 21-23 “Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.

Heb. 3: 1Therefore, holy brethren, who share in a heavenly call, consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession”

Mt. 16:19  DIRECT QUOTE: I will give you {Alone ALL } the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

The term “reconciliation” describes the effects and benefit of this Sacrament. Man is reconciled with our God; our sins ARE forgiven and forgotten by God through his Catholic priest, so this then is the “KNOWN & ASSURED” way AND MANNER  to inner peace given by God to men who actually hear and then OBEY HIM. It is HIGHLY significant that in this teaching: John 20:19-23, that Christ tells us TWICE to be peaceful and assured: “Now when it was late that same day, the first of the week, and the doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them: Peace be to you[20] And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord.[21] He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. [22] When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. [23] Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain; they are retained.” Jesus Christ does not mince his wrd; His intent, His ONLY Teaching on this issue critical to everyone salvation.**

  • ** The Church, the Portal, and the ONLY portal of all salvation, as “all salvation mysteriously must and does flow through Her”; holds out the possibility of salvation outside her DIRECT embrace, to those who though NO FAULT {culpability} of their won, do not [or are not granted], the knowledge of Christ One Church and the absolute need to be joined to Her; the Catechism of the Catholic Church #’s 846 & 847; might yet conditionally attain their Salvation.
  • The term “Penance” makes reference to penalty imposed by the priest in Confession to make us aware of the damage we have done to our souls, our relationship with God, to the Church and to society as a whole, as all sins have a “public nature” that affects others besides ourselves.

 In current times this is often very slight, and minimal, but sufficient to act as a reminder, once the priest is assured that we are truly repentant of our sinful actions.

 There is a “SEAL” of Confession that a priest may not under ANY circumstances, threats or promised rewards, reveal what is shared in the Confessional, without putting his own soul at GRAVE risk of eternal damnation. So serious is this that ONLY the Pope can personally override this; and I don’t think in the 2,000 year history of the Church that it has ever been done!

 While this sacrament DOES fully and exclusively remit ALL sins, it does not remove the “Temporal Punishment} caused by All son; attached to all sinful acts.

  • This “Temporal Punishment” must then be repaid before one can enter into the Beatific Vision {Christ actual Presence}. This can be accomplished even after death; so long as the Soul DOES die in the “State of God’s Grace.” Meaning without the stain of unconfessed; and, or, unforgiven Mortal sin. John 5: 16-17
  • “Temporal Punishment due to sin” is judged ONLY and directly by Christ Himself, who alone knows the amount of the debt, and to what degree He accepts payment thereof. So it is Christ alone who is the “bookkeeper” of this reality which nevertheless must absolutely be repaid to make the Soul Perfect; the necessity Christ sets to permit any Soul into His Divine and Perfect Presence.   

Lev.22: 21 “And when any one offers a sacrifice of peace offerings to the LORD, to fulfill a vow or as a freewill offering, from the herd or from the flock, to be accepted it must be perfect; there shall be no blemish in it. … Rev. 21: 27 “But nothing unclean shall enter it, nor anyone who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life.”  … Mt. 5:26 truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny.  … Matt.5: 48 “You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” … Heb. 2: 10 For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering.”

The Church, holder of “all the key’s to heaven” is given the authority to make Temporal Punishment repayable while on earth through good works, charity, suffering offered up to God and Indulgences, which is a separate topic.

  1. {3} Eucharist/ the Real Presence

       This too is a significant LOSS to the Protestant communities. The Dogma od the Real Presence, meaning that Jesus Christ in Person, is “truly, Really and Substanually present in Catholic Holy Communion [Also the Orthodox who have Direct Apostolic Succession, and all Seven Sacraments Validly; but NOT Licitly], are empowered by Christ and the Holy Spirit, to make Jesus Himself Present to us. This reality is testified to by Christ Personally and FIVE different authors of the New Testament: Mt.

Matthew 26: 26-28 “And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.”

MARK 14: 22-24 “And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body. And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it.  And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.}

Luke 22: 19-21 And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.”

Paul 1 Cor.11: 23-29 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread.  And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.  For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come. Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: [to be worthy of the privilege]  and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself

John from Chapter 6: 47-57 Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. I am the bread of life.  I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, abides in me, and I in him.”

So it is really the denial of God Himself in person that is denied. That is not only a indescribable; discernable loss;  but puts there very Souls at risk.

This Gift of Christ Himself is:

FROM God the Father

Of God the Son

By God the Holy Spirit

And is the greatest of all possible protections against us sinning.

  1. {4} “Marriage” and or “Holy Orders {the Catholic Priesthood} Depending on on’s Vocational call

If one is called by God to either of these vocations; God grants extra and special graces along with them to better enable one to live that vocation fully in accord with God’s expectations of that call. Additionally, special graces are offered to permit those to avoid and resist the always present temptation to sin. Especially those temptations associated with that vocation. Sin is always a freewill choice of man.

  1. {5} “The Last rites”

Just as entry into the Only Faith and Church that is FULLY “God approved, guided and protected {Mt.16:15-19, John 17:11-26, Mt. 28: 16-20}; is given a means of necessary perfection, if one is to enter immediately upon death, into the intimate Union with Christ through the Beatific Vision; so too Christ and His Church, OFFER a means to leave this world, fully perfected and ready for heave for all eternity.  God’s Love and Mercy {the very reasons the Sacraments were instituted by Christ}, through this Sacrament of final anointing

James 5:14-15 “Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. [15] And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man: and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.”

James 1:16-26 “[16] Do not err, therefore, my dearest brethren. [17] Every best gift, and every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no change, nor shadow of alteration[18] For of his own will hath he begotten us by the word of truth, that we might besome beginning of his creatures[19] You know, my dearest brethren. And let every man be swift to hear, but slow to speak, and slow to anger[20] For the anger of man worketh not the justice of God. [21] Wherefore casting away all uncleanness, and abundance of naughtiness, with meekness receive the ingrafted word, which is able to save your souls. [22] But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves[23] For if a man be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he shall be compared to a man beholding his own countenance in a glass. [24] For he beheld himself, and went his way, and presently forgot what manner of man he was. [25] But he that hath looked into the perfect law of liberty, and hath continued therein, not becoming a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work; this man shall be blessed in his deed.

[26] And if any man think himself to be religious, not bridling his tongue, but deceiving his own heart, this man’ s religion is vain[27] Religion clean and undefiled before God and the Father, is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation: and to keep one’ s self unspotted from this world.”

James 2:24, 26 “Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?  For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead.”

What God was able to do “Justly and Fairly” in the Old Testament, can is no longer applicable to these New Covenant, New Testament times now under GRACE, {Romans 6:15} not only Law. Because God has given us SO very much more; He MUST expect more from us.

 Things like the “Sinners Prayer” and “Altar calls”, OSAS are all mortal men and quite recent innovations; NONE of which are God approved for sin forgiveness and hold are truly the possibility of ones’ salvation. Man CANNOT tell God how Hw will save them. Man MUST in humility listen and hear, and then ACCEPT and Do what God Commands. Amen.

 God Bless you,

 Patrick

Post navigation

0THOUGHTS ON “QUESTION: “HOW DO WE ATONE FOR SINS?””

  1. What is the difference between the Catholic and Protestant understandings of grace?
    Protestants tend to think grace works extrinsically to the person

    my Dad took my basket from me, so i yanked it away, hugged it to my chest and hissed, “mmyyyy, PPPRRRRRECCCCIOOUS!!!” ..and then i hissed at him! XXD

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

patrick j miron — working4christtwo catholic answers 4 dummies–THOUGHTS ON “QUESTION: “HOW DO WE ATONE FOR SINS?””

Post navigation

0THOUGHTS ON “QUESTION: “HOW DO WE ATONE FOR SINS?””

  1. What is the difference between the Catholic and Protestant understandings of grace?
    Protestants tend to think grace works extrinsically to the person

    my Dad took my basket from me, so i yanked it away, hugged it to my chest and hissed, “mmyyyy, PPPRRRRRECCCCIOOUS!!!” ..and then i hissed at him! XXD

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

patrick j miron

WORKING4CHRISTTWO CATHOLIC ANSWERS 4 DUMMIES THE SINNERS PRAYER

he Myths taught and eagerly accepted such as the “Sinners Prayer”http://www.bible.ca/g-sinners-prayer.htm; is but a recent innovation, made into a Doctrine by Billy Graham as he had to find a “quick and believable” way to save sinners within the timeframe of his radio and TV shows requirements, The Sinners Prayer was followed by another recent invention, caused by the same time restraints: http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/contempry/altar.htm

Father John A. Hardon S. J.

{my mentor-may he rest in peace.}, often quipped: “YOU can’t share what YOU don’t have.” And this dear friends applies even to those who are caught unaware of the biblical inadequacy of their faith beliefs ability to accomplish what they proudly proclaim as “God’s Truth.”

hello i told my christian prayer group that catholics don’;t believe in the sinners prayer- 4 entering into the covenant with Jesus — they all laughted– and gave testimony’s on how the Holy Spirit and jesus brought and taught them —

and i did look at the teaching and ramblings of father hard on

wrote 40 books — and couldn’t figure out — how to get people baptised in the Holy Spirit —

ya that’s the kind of religious teacher — i want —NOT in my yard–

that’s like the religious sa

Father John A. Hardon S. J. {my mentor-may he rest in peace.}, often quipped:

“YOU can’t share what YOU don’t have.”

And this dear friends applies even to those who are caught unaware of the biblical inadequacy of (non catholic-protestant)

their faith beliefs ability to accomplish what they proudly proclaim as “God’s Truth.”

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

randy carson catholic answers form — you can’t fix stupid

Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #1
Old Today, 10:10 am
Randy Carson's Avatar
Forum Master
Join Date: September 22, 2006
Posts: 12,951
Religion: Protestant Convert to Catholicism
Default Primacy but not Supremacy?

I’m not starting this thread to argue this topic with anyone. Instead, I want to listen to others give detailed answers to two questions:

  1. What exactly is the distinction between primacy and supremacy specifically as those terms are applied or denied with regard to the Bishop of Rome?
  2. Based upon Sacred Scripture alone, why, specifically, would Peter be said to have primacy but NOT supremacy?

(We can discuss the writings of the ECF’s at another time.)

Thanks in advance.

__________________
Tiber Swim Team – Class of ’79
I’m a Catholic. You have questions. Let’s get started.

“For an Evangelical Christian to become a Catholic is not to deny all that is good within his non-Catholic faith, but to embrace more.” Fr. Dwight Longenecker
“The same holds true for Orthodox Christians.” Randy Carson