by Fr. Arnold Damen, S.J. (1815 - 1890)
Imprimatur: Michael Augustine, Archbishop of New York.
"The Catholic has divine faith, and why? Because the Catholic says, "I believe in such and such a thing." Why? "Because the Church teaches me so." And why do you believe the Church? "Because God has commanded me to believe the teaching of the Church. And God has threatened me with damnation, if I do not believe the Church. And we are taught by St. Peter, in his epistle, "No prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation [2 Peter 1:20] ... for the unlearned and unstable wrest ... Scriptures ... to their own descruction." [2 Peter 3:16]
That is strong language, my dear people, but that is the language of St. Peter, the head of the Apostles. The unlearned and unstable wrest the Bible to their own damnation! And yet, the Bible is the book of God, the language of inspiration, when we have a true Bible, as we Catholics have, but you Protestants have not.
But, my dearly beloved Protestant friends, do not be offended at me for saying that. Your own most learned preachers and bishops tell you that. Some have written whole volumes in order to prove that the English translation, which you have, is a very faulty and false translation.
Now, therefore, I say that the true Bible is what the Catholics have, the Latin Vulgate. And the most learned among the Protestants themselves have agreed that the Latin Vulgate Bible, which the Catholic Church always makes use of, is the best in existence. And therefore, as you may have perceived, when I preach I give the text in Latin, because the Latin text of the Vulgate is the best extant."
Posts
41 comments:
Strong language indeed!
Well, there you go--case closed! I guess I need to make a trip to the bookstore.
I Wonder if it was ok to believe the Arian heresy when the Roman church taught it?
Imprimatur: Michael Augustine, Archbishop of New York
No comment.
kaycee, many IN the Catholic Church taught the Arian Heresy, but it was not taught BY the Catholic Church and it was BY the Catholic Church that the Arian Heresy was condemned.
Kaycee,
It was the PELAGIAN heresy that was officially taught by the Roman church through it's infallible Pontiff, Pope Zosimus.
It was only the intervention of the secular emperor Honorius that kept Rome from leading us all into perpetual heresy.
That's what you probably meant to say, anyway.
Peace.
While we're discussing the Vulgate, I couldn't help but notce the (apocryphal) 14th chapter of Daniel refers to a dragon.
Could anyone, Reformed or Roman Catholic, help me understand what's up with this dragon?
In Christ,
JL
Thanks, Constantine. I guess i took "Athanasius against the world" too literally.
Interesting note i found while reading about Athanasius.
"When this duty fell on Athanasius (annual Alexandrian pastoral letter) in 367, he took the occasion to instruct the churches in the canon of Scripture and to enumerate the books which rightly were the rule of the faith and life in the church. Athanasius' letter contained the 66 books of the Bible as we now have them, and excluded the apocryphal books.
Constantine wrote: It was the PELAGIAN heresy that was officially taught by the Roman church through it's infallible Pontiff, Pope Zosimus.
What did Pope Zosimus infallibly teach? Where is this official papal document which would meet the standards of infallibility?
He said "officially" not "infallibly." The idea of infallible papal teachings hadn't been invented by that time, of course.
Now granted he said "infallible Pontiff" but of course that is just tongue-in-cheek. He doesn't really think that Zosimus was infallible - quite the opposite.
TF said: He said "officially" not "infallibly." The idea of infallible papal teachings hadn't been invented by that time, of course.
The "idea" of infallibility came from Jesus Christ Himself when He told St. Peter, our first pope, "Whatsoever you shall bind on Earth is also bound in Heaven." Since error cannot be bound in Heaven THAT is where the "idea of infallible papal teachings" came about.
TF continues: Now granted he said "infallible Pontiff" but of course that is just tongue-in-cheek. He doesn't really think that Zosimus was infallible - quite the opposite.
Thank you for admitting Constantine made the reference to the infallibility of Pope Zosimus. We're still waiting for that "official" teaching from him.
When Jesus said that whatever the saint Simon Peter bound on earth was bound im heaven, there's a lot of things that he didn't say.
Like he didn't say that Peter alone had this.
He didn't say Peter was some sort of super-apostle.
He didn't say that Peter held an office.
He didn't say that any office would pass to Peter's successor.
He didn't say that the promise he granted would be passed on through successors to that office.
He didn't even say Peter would have a successor.
He certainly didn't say that that successor would be tied to a geograpghic region hundreds of miles away.
And he definitely didn't say Rome would be that successor and carry on for always and ever with the power of binding and loosing.
So no, Jesus did not teach papal infallilibilty, as even giving you infallibility, there are no popes.
Popes were invented later, by men, and papal infallibilty was ret-conned back in to that verse some thousand years later.
John said: Like he didn't say that Peter alone had this.
He didn't say Peter was some sort of super-apostle.
Different subject, John. Stick to the point.
He didn't say that Peter held an office.
Still a different subject, but the fact is the apostolic office is called the "bishoprick."
He didn't say that any office would pass to Peter's successor.
Yet, if even Judas' "office" required a successor - why would you doubt St. Peter had one? Again, this is still another topic and yet another attempt to divert the subject here.
He didn't say that the promise he granted would be passed on through successors to that office.
OK, closer to the topic now, since you're talking about the promise made to St. Peter. You've admitted three things here: 1) the promise was made and 2) there would be successors and 3) it IS an office!
He didn't even say Peter would have a successor.
Again, different subject. Remember, the subject is infallibility at the moment, not succession.
He certainly didn't say that that successor would be tied to a geograpghic region hundreds of miles away.
You're still running off on a tangent. The subject is infallibility, remember? My comment was one that we're still waiting for Constantine to present the "official" teaching from Pope Zosimus.
And he definitely didn't say Rome would be that successor and carry on for always and ever with the power of binding and loosing.
Again, you're admitting there IS a successor - you're just denying it was the Bishop of Rome.
So no, Jesus did not teach papal infallilibilty, as even giving you infallibility, there are no popes.
Well, you've already admitted to "the promise" and to say "there are no popes" is just silly. If you ever get to Italy, visit the Catacombs of San Callisto - and make sure to take note of the "Crypt of the Popes" there. Popes from the 200's, 100 years prior to Constantine (the Emperor) ending the persecution of the Catholic Church, were buried there - in fact 9 popes and 8 bishops. This is part of YOUR Christian heritage too! A flat out denial of the papacy is a bit amusing, but sad at the same time.
Popes were invented later, by men, and papal infallibilty was ret-conned back in to that verse some thousand years later.
When do you think "popes were invented?"
I'm not sure what "ret-conned" means, but I believe you're trying to say "infallibility was defined to fit into that verse 1000 years later" - but you're not dealing with MY POINT that if something is bound in Heaven, then it MUST be infallible! Are you implying that St. Peter could bind error in Heaven? Yes or no.
Let's try to stick to the topic.
Scott,
I never said there was an office or a successor. I in fact said the exact opposite. Jesus never said there would be a successor, and since he never said there woud even be a successor how much more did he not say that this not-mentioned, hypothetical successor would receive the same promises. I have to wonder if you thought you were actually catching me in something, or if you just don't care?
What is the topic? I thought it was the infallibility of the popes. You claim Jesus thought of the idea himself when he made his statement to Peter. I was pointing out, no, Jesus made a promise to Peter when Jesus made a promise to Peter. The idea that Jesus was also making a promise of a visible, temporal office tied to a geographic region hundreds of miles away governed by pagans, an office that would be passed down through successors who would likewise receive binding and loosing when speaking ex cathedra as the supreme authority and faith and morals, this power received by virtue of a council voting them in... need I say that that's sort of stretching the context of the passage a bit, perhaps?
Jesus never promised a papacy. If the idea of a papacy is nowhere to be found in this verse, then neither is papal infallibility.
Ret-con is short for "retroactive continuity". It's what happens when a TV show or book series declares late in the plot line that something has actually been the case the whole time - wizards could always immediately teleport to wherever they wanted, they just never did before because they all felt like taking the bus. You're supposed to go and read the new information into the past books or episodes as though it were there all along and you just never noticed. You're even suppoaed to find clues.
Even though no one ever intended (until last month) for the old man to be the long lost father of the hero, really he already was for the past four seasons of the show.
That's a ret-con.
In Christ,
JL
"If you ever get to Italy, visit the Catacombs of San Callisto - and make sure to take note of the "Crypt of the Popes" there."
Do you have contemporary sources that list the individuals as "popes"?
For instance, the Roman Martyrology refers to Pope Lucius I (one of the "popes" in the catacombs) as a "pope". However, the Martyrology was first published in 1583.
The wikipedia entry for Pontian makes this statement: "His epitaph was rediscovered in 1909 in the Catacomb of Callixtus, near the papal crypt, reading "PONTIANOS, EPISK.". The inscription "MARTUR" had been added in another hand." Is "EPISK" Latin or Greek for "Pope"?
No one denies that there has been a bishop of Rome for a long time. The dispute is at what point the first single monarchical bishop that claimed jurisdiction over all believers emerged.
"...if something is bound in Heaven, then it MUST be infallible! Are you implying that St. Peter could bind error in Heaven? "
I believe that this is backwards. Heaven is not ratifying Peter's decision, rather Peter and later all of the apostles, are being given the assurance that whatever they declared as bound or loosened on Earth was already defined as such in Heaven. This is akin to a prophetic (truth telling) gift. The apostles would be speaking on behalf of God, not binding God to their decisions.
John wrote: I never said there was an office or a successor. I in fact said the exact opposite.
Well, you admitted to a successor when you said, "He didn't say that any office would pass to Peter's successor.
He didn't say that the promise he granted would be passed on through successors to that office." Yes, in the same context you deny a successor, but your words betray you a bit here.
John continues: Jesus never said there would be a successor, and since he never said there woud even be a successor how much more did he not say that this not-mentioned, hypothetical successor would receive the same promises.
Acts 1, Judas' OFFICE needed to be FILLED - that is SUCCESSION in the OFFICE of Apostle/Bishoprick. Scripture is God's Word and Jesus is God - so your denials are dismissed, unless of course you are denying the Divinity of Jesus Christ.
John 14:12 tells us that those who follow Him will do what He did and even greater things!
The Christian Church is not some emasculated/powerless cult! No, Jesus EMPOWERED His Church with HIS AUTHORITY!
John ponders: I have to wonder if you thought you were actually catching me in something, or if you just don't care?
Your words say two different things, I pointed out where your words betray your denial of succession and authority. I realize you do not agree with me, but words do mean things.
John continues: What is the topic? I thought it was the infallibility of the popes.
Yes, it was not succession - that was a bit of a diversion.
John continues: You claim Jesus thought of the idea himself when he made his statement to Peter. I was pointing out, no, Jesus made a promise to Peter when Jesus made a promise to Peter. The idea that Jesus was also making a promise of a visible, temporal office tied to a geographic region hundreds of miles away governed by pagans, an office that would be passed down through successors who would likewise receive binding and loosing when speaking ex cathedra as the supreme authority and faith and morals, this power received by virtue of a council voting them in... need I say that that's sort of stretching the context of the passage a bit, perhaps?
What do you call the authority to bind or loose something in Heaven? I call it INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY. You seem to be avoiding the obvious here.
John continues: Jesus never promised a papacy. If the idea of a papacy is nowhere to be found in this verse, then neither is papal infallibility.
We can discuss the "papal" aspect once you concur there is an "infallible" aspect. Do you agree or disagree that the authority to bind or loose something in Heaven is infallible authority?
Scott<<<
"Acts 1, Judas' OFFICE needed to be FILLED - that is SUCCESSION in the OFFICE of Apostle/Bishoprick. Scripture is God's Word and Jesus is God - so your denials are dismissed, unless of course you are denying the Divinity of Jesus Christ."
First of all, Peter laid out the qualifications for Judas' "successor". That person had to have been with the apostles for Jesus' earthly ministry. There's no one who fulfills those qualifications any longer.
Secondly, the RCC in appealing to Acts 1 undercuts their own argument in that not only do the Roman "successors of the apostles" NOT fulfill the qualifications laid out by Peter, the mode of determining "successors" is not scriptural, Matthias' selection was by the casting of lots, not an election by vote. Why has the RCC abandoned the casting of lots? Perhaps it is because it denies the Borgias of the world the opportunity to rig the election of the pope?
Thirdly, you are (deliberately?) confusing the office of apostle with that of bishop. The two are not synonymous.
So given the above, your dismissal is dismissed.
"The Christian Church is not some emasculated/powerless cult! No, Jesus EMPOWERED His Church with HIS AUTHORITY!"
I agree that the Body of Christ is not an emasculated or powerless cult. However, I don't confuse the RCC necessarily with the Body of Christ despite your use of bolded fonts, CAPITAL LETTERING or exclamation points!!
Scott,
As EA has pointed out, the passage in Acts 1 doesn't help your case. Firstly, choosing a replacement for a traitor after he turns cloak and kills himself is a bit different than choosing a replacement to a deceased pope, I would think. Secondly, the reason Peter claims there needs to be another apostle is because of a prophecy in the 109th psalm about a wicked man. If you really want to argue that psalm 109 is referring to St. Peter... well, I disagree. Thirdly, as EA said, the qualification for "succeeding" Judas was having been a disciple from the baptism to accension, which cannot possibly apply to anyone after the first generation of believers. Fourthly, this position doesn't talk about an "office" that confers attendant powers, and neither does it relate this hypothetical office or these powers to a specific geographical bishopric. So to recap: there's no reason this should be seen as applying to Peter, and every reason to think it doesn't; even if it did apppy to Peter, this explicitly removes every possible pope from being a successor; even if it did apply and didn't remove, it doesn't guarantee a transference of infallibility; and even granting that, you still don't have a pope.
If I told you that Matt 16:18 was a guarantee that a dragon would come and devour Caesarea Phillippi, and you reply that this passage doesn't say there's a dragon, and it doesn't say the dragon is going to devour Caesarea Phillippi, how impresed are you when I rebut "so you admit it's talking about a dragon"?
If you want to talk about infallibility without the popes, then keep reading the passage. Keep reading the book, too, and then straight in to Acts. The best reading I can see from this is Jesus promising Peter that he will be a faithful witness of the gospel, as he trusts in what is revealed by God and not by man. He certainly doesn't promise Peter that whenever he speaks as the universal shepherd of all Christians in defining a matter of faith and morals ex cathedra that that statement will be as true as if it were spoken directly by God. So no, I don't give you infallibility, as any meaningful sense of that word is contradicted by Peter's later errors and the RC definition of that term is far too cumbersome to fit into the simple Greek word for "bind".
I will say, Peter was promised the faithfulness and the truth of his witness in proclaiming who is the Christ, and even here given authority in his position as one to confess Jesus' identity.
Is that alright for a compromise? Feel free to point me to where you the First Vatican's definition appears in this text, but I just don't see it.
In Christ,
JL
John wrote: As EA has pointed out, the passage in Acts 1 doesn't help your case. Firstly, choosing a replacement for a traitor after he turns cloak and kills himself is a bit different than choosing a replacement to a deceased pope, I would think.
John, you and EA seem to be missing the point that it was not merely the PERSON being replaced, but that his OFFICE needed to be FILLED.
Certainly St. Peter specified some requirements to be numbered among "The Twelve," but that does not change the fact of the office vacated needed to be filled. That apostolic office exists to this day and is still called by the same name, the bishoprick.
Scott wrote: "The "idea" of infallibility came from Jesus Christ Himself when He told St. Peter, our first pope, "Whatsoever you shall bind on Earth is also bound in Heaven." Since error cannot be bound in Heaven THAT is where the "idea of infallible papal teachings" came about."
No, that is not where the idea came from.
Nor did such an idea occur to the church fathers who read that passage, nor to us their spiritual heirs who read the text today.
After all, even a simple person can see that in context the binding and loosing refers to sins not dogmas.
-TurretinFan
"John, you and EA seem to be missing the point that it was not merely the PERSON being replaced, but that his OFFICE needed to be FILLED.
Certainly St. Peter specified some requirements to be numbered among "The Twelve," but that does not change the fact of the office vacated needed to be filled. That apostolic office exists to this day and is still called by the same name, the bishoprick."
I'm sorry, but I don't agree. Nowhere in Scripture is the office "apostle" specified as an ongoing or perpetual office to be handed down from generation to generation. Secondly, your argument and position conflates the role of bishop with that of apostle. That is an assertion looking for a supporting argument.
Scott,
Fine. Judas's office as one of the 12 needed to be filled. It was necessart to fill it because Psalm 109 predicted the downfall of a wicked traitor whose position was to be filled -or at least that's what Peter says. Matthias then became the twelfth of the twelve.
How many bishoprics are there? More than twelve. Somewhere around five thousand.
This passage does not state the twelve are an ongoing ministry - the reason for Judas' replacement is explicitly stated by Peter as being because of his betrayal, not because there always had to be twelve apostles.
Even if I grant that this passage means any time one of the twelve died he had to be replaced by someone else, even if I suspend the qualifications to that office as listed in the passage, this passage still does not make your case, as that would describe a system other than the one currently present in Roman Catholicism.
Also, as EA keeps pointing out, apostles and bishops are two different things.
In Christ,
JL
TF wrote: After all, even a simple person can see that in context the binding and loosing refers to sins not dogmas.
You know TF, you MIGHT have an argument there IF that word "whatsoever" was not in there. Since it IS there, you cannot limit Scripture NOR the apostolic authority which has been passed down to all valid successors in the apostolic office (bishops).
As for EA and John's denials of the apostolic office of the bishop, simply denying it does not make their case - and we've had this "office" from the git-go.
We're still waiting for Constantine to provide the infallible Pope Zosimus' "official teaching" of Pelagianism. The fact of the matter is Pope Zosimus accepted the false confessions of Pelagius and Caelestius and declared THEY were orthodox, he did not declare PelagianISM to be orthodox. After it was made blatantly clear (by the emperor) that these confessions were false - Pope Zosimus reinstated the condemnation of his predecessor, Pope Innocent I. Bottom line, the incident with Pope Zosimus was NOT a matter of infallibility NOR a matter of a pope "officially teaching" heresy. I've been all over this one with White and King and others.
"As for EA and John's denials of the apostolic office of the bishop, simply denying it does not make their case - and we've had this "office" from the git-go."
All that's missing from the above is the supporting argument.
You're asserting a perpetual office to which I allegedly owe fealty. If I'm to take such claims seriously I require more than just your say so.
>> sw: As for EA and John's
>> denials of the apostolic office
>> of the bishop, simply denying
>> it does not make their case -
>> and we've had this "office"
>> from the git-go."
>
> EA: All that's missing from the
> above is the supporting argument.
Supporting the blatently obvious is typically not necessary.
> EA: You're asserting a perpetual
> office to which I allegedly owe
> fealty. If I'm to take such
> claims seriously I require more
> than just your say so.
Well, dittos on the "just your say so." As I said before, just because you deny it does not make your denial valid. The fact is bishops have been with the Church from the git-go, this is scriptural and undeniably obvious. The Apostles also held the office of bishop. Apostle simply means one "sent out" - and ALL bishops are "sent out." So I really don't understand your objection to that which is clearly scriptural and sound support for the bishoprick. Well, that's not entirely true - as I DO understand that since nearly all Protestant churches don't have a bishoprick at all - and certainly do not have VALID TIES to THE bishoprick established by Christ - yes, I do understand the reason WHY you object, but I do not understand the objection itself, and I'm going to need more than just your denial on that to accept your denial as a valid argument.
Sorry for the delay in response, Scott.
But you asked the following:
What did Pope Zosimus infallibly teach? Where is this official papal document which would meet the standards of infallibility?
Fair question. There are two. The first is Zosimus's letter to the African church, including Augustine, dated September 417 and entitled Magnum pondus. Therein the pope assured the North Africans that “the faith of Caelestius was completely satisfactory.” The second letter, dated 21 Sept. 417 carrying the title, Postquam a nobis assured the Africans of the “absoluta fides” of both Caelestius and Pelagius.
As to the standards of “infallibility” it was Zosimus, in his subsequent forced retraction stated that, “So great is our authority, that no decision of ours can be subjected to review.”
I hope that helps.
Peace.
"and I'm going to need more than just your denial on that to accept your denial as a valid argument."
I provided the reasons and rationale for my denial. It is not as if I simply said, "I deny that." I provided reasons. It seems that you are unwilling to provide an exegesis of scripture that proves your position. If it is so obvious, then it should hardly require any effort to demonstrate once and for all the truth of your assertion.
Just get a concordance and look up all the instances of "apostle," "elder," "bishop," etc. It's clear as day that the word "apostle" refers to either the Twelve Apostles, Paul, a person sent out on a mission to spread the gospel to the world, or in one case (Hebrews 3:1), Jesus Christ himself.
There is no case where the most clear and obvious meaning would indicate that apostle = bishop, pastor, elder, etc. I don't think it would be unscriptural to call missionaries "apostles," but "bishop" is a different concept.
steelikat, I agree - there's more to "bishop" than there is to "apostle." There are more than twelve apostles in Scripture too... St. Paul has already been noted. Anyone "sent out" can be called an "apostle," Barnabas was called one too in Acts 14. St. Paul doesn't "fit" with the requirements St. Peter set out for Judas' successor, yet not one of you will deny that St. Paul is also an Apostle!
A bishop, on the other hand, is one who has been selected to be an overseer - a leader.
Constantine, I already answered, but will do so again... Pope Zosimus declared Caelestius and Pelagius to be orthodox - but only after they had given a false confession. It was based upon that false confession that Zosimus made the declaration you referred to. Once he was convinced (by the Emperor) that confession was a lie and that Caelestius and Pelagius were still indeed embracing the heresy - he re-imposed the condemnation of his predecessor, Pope Innocent I, upon them. Several Protestants have attempted to jump on this one - but they are wrong to do so. Those who stubbornly cling to this lie only look foolish to those who have looked objectively at the situation. I hope you have the integrity to admit the real facts here.
EA, back to what you said earlier:
> I'm sorry, but I don't agree.
> Nowhere in Scripture is the
> office "apostle" specified as an
> ongoing or perpetual office to
> be handed down from generation
> to generation.
Logically speaking, what kind of an "office" would it be if it were not to be "filled" when vacated? The fact is, we see Judas' "office" being "filled" by Matthias in Acts 1. Like it or not, that demonstrates succession in the "office" of "bishoprick."
> Secondly, your argument and
> position conflates the role of
> bishop with that of apostle.
> That is an assertion looking for
> a supporting argument.
Judas, and Apostle, held an office which Acts 1 refers to as a "bishoprick." With the vacancy in Judas' "office" a "successor" needed to be found - AND this is the fulfillment of the prophecy in Psalms, "Let another take his office." It has already been asserted that St. Peter made the requirements for Apostle impossible for people beyond that generation to qualify as an Apostle, yet as I said earlier - Sts. Paul and Barnabas are clearly called "apostles" in Acts 14 - and neither would fulfill the requirements laid down by St. Peter for Judas' successor. Therefore to apply those qualifications to ALL apostles would be fallacious.
Again, the "office" of bishop is not only mentioned in Scripture several times - the earliest of the Early Church writings reference this "office" as well, with several ECFs documenting true apostolic succession through the office of the bishop.
Constantine, you can see where I have spelled this out in great detail by clicking here. There's way too much information for a combox reply.
"You know TF, you MIGHT have an argument there IF that word "whatsoever" was not in there. Since it IS there, you cannot limit Scripture NOR the apostolic authority which has been passed down to all valid successors in the apostolic office (bishops)."
Tell it to all the valid successors in the apostolic office who, for hundreds of years, never found in the relative pronoun "o" the meaning you want to squeeze into it.
If you really believe in succession, then act on your belief and deny the novel dogma of papal infallibility.
But you will not, by which we can see that you don't really accept either Scripture or Tradition.
-TurretinFan
sw>> "You know TF, you MIGHT
>> have an argument there IF that
>> word "whatsoever" was not in
>> there. Since it IS there, you
>> cannot limit Scripture NOR the
>> apostolic authority which has
>> been passed down to all valid
>> successors in the apostolic
>> office (bishops)."
>
TF> Tell it to all the valid
> successors in the apostolic
> office who, for hundreds of
> years, never found in the
> relative pronoun "o" the
> meaning you want to squeeze
> into it.
sw: Not in Matthew 18:18, but in Matthew 16:18-19 it is undeniable that Jesus is speaking to Simon, whom He renames "Peter" - and to him alone in that context.
TF> If you really believe in
> succession, then act on your
> belief and deny the novel dogma
> of papal infallibility.
sw: It's not a novel idea, at least not in the context of the New Testament... now yes, it was a bit novel in the whole context of Scripture (Old and New Testament). When Jesus said St. Peter could bind or loose WHATSOEVER HE CHOSE - that was infallible authority... unless you're believing error could be bound in Heaven. The latter part of this statement I don't recall any of you EVER dealing with... the concept of error being bound in Heaven. What I HAVE seen is a lot of diversion. TF, will you answer this? Can error be bound or loosed in Heaven? Yes or no?
TF> But you will not, by which we can see that you don't really accept either Scripture or Tradition.
sw: And of course, my position is that I accept BOTH Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition. The FACT is this Tradition is straight from Scripture.
In Christ,
Scott<<<
"sw: Not in Matthew 18:18, but in Matthew 16:18-19 it is undeniable that Jesus is speaking to Simon, whom He renames "Peter" - and to him alone in that context."
a) That's not an answer to my point that you are squeezing something into the "o" that was not squeezed into it by the fathers.
b) Peter is a surname or additional name. Jesus does not rename him.
"sw: It's not a novel idea, at least not in the context of the New Testament... now yes, it was a bit novel in the whole context of Scripture (Old and New Testament)."
It is not taught in either testament. Moreover, it wasn't taught by the fathers. It is a novelty having its roots in the medieval period and its actual adoption in the modern era.
"When Jesus said St. Peter could bind or loose WHATSOEVER HE CHOSE - that was infallible authority... unless you're believing error could be bound in Heaven."
It's not talking about binding dogma on people. If it were "loosing" would be a strange word, since even you who falsely imbue the papacy with infallibility don't think that the papacy "looses" dogma.
"The latter part of this statement I don't recall any of you EVER dealing with... the concept of error being bound in Heaven. What I HAVE seen is a lot of diversion. TF, will you answer this? Can error be bound or loosed in Heaven? Yes or no?"
No, of course, is the answer. The reason what it is "no," is the same reason that truth cannot be "loosed" in heaven, namely that you are committing a category error.
Your novel interpretation (I know you are just repeating the garbage you were fed, but it is not an ancient interpretation) of the passage doesn't actually make sense of the passage.
-TurretinFan
>> sw: Not in Matthew 18:18, but
>> in Matthew 16:18-19 it is
>> undeniable that Jesus is
>> speaking to Simon, whom He
>> renames "Peter" - and to him
>> alone in that context."
>
> TF: a) That's not an answer to
> my point that you are squeezing
> something into the "o" that was
> not squeezed into it by the
> fathers.
a) It is directly to MY point.
b) Whether or not it answers your point is irrelevant to the fact that you have answered mine.
> b) Peter is a surname or
> additional name. Jesus does not
> rename him.
I beg to differ. In SEVERAL places throughout the NT the person who was once known as "Simon" is referred to solely as "Cephas" or "Peter." I understand why you wish to belittle the "renaming" point, because everytime God renamed someone it had great significance!
> It is not taught in either
> testament. Moreover, it wasn't
> taught by the fathers. It is a
> novelty having its roots in the
> medieval period and its actual
> adoption in the modern era.
Sorry to disappoint you, but the FACT is the authority to BIND or LOOSE WHATSOEVER is given in the New Testament. This is undeniable - unless you're ripping pages from Scripture now.
> It's not talking about binding
> dogma on people.
The term "whatsoever" is not limiting in ANY fashion, thus it may well be applied to binding dogma.
> If it were "loosing" would be a
> strange word, since even you
> who falsely imbue the papacy
> with infallibility don't think
> that the papacy "looses" dogma.
A "loosing" could be applied to one who is declared, infallibly, to be a Saint. They most certainly are "loosed" as such!
>> "The latter part of this
>> statement I don't recall any
>> of you EVER dealing with...
>> the concept of error being
>> bound in Heaven. What I HAVE
>> seen is a lot of diversion.
>> TF, will you answer this? Can
>> error be bound or loosed in
>> Heaven? Yes or no?"
>
> No, of course, is the answer.
Thank you for answering. So, since this authority IS GRANTED in Matthew 16 and 18 - you MUST admit that this authority is INFALLIBLE and is NOT a novel innovation of the medieval period.
> The reason what it is "no," is
> the same reason that truth
> cannot be "loosed" in heaven,
> namely that you are committing
> a category error.
You wish to reduce what I'm saying to an invalid argument, but what you end up doing is attempting to make SCRIPTURE into an invalid argument! I quote you Scripture, and ask you a question - and somehow I am making an invalid (category error) argument? Certainly I posit that "whatsoever" is NOT LIMITING in ANY WAY - and since this authority is granted to these MEN, these men were given INFALLIBLE authority. The NEXT step is to speak about succession - but we've already drifted quite a bit from the original topic of this article... that being the Vulgate.
(continued...)
(Continuing....)
RECAP:
Original Topic: The Vulgate
kaycee's Topic: Arianism
Constantine's Erroneous Topic ("correcting" kaycee): Pelagianism was officially taught by the Catholic Church.
Lollard's Topic: The dragon of the deuterocanonical chapter 14 of Daniel.
Lollard's Topic: What Jesus Didn't Say to St. Peter.
Lollard's Topic: Challenging Succession.
Lollard's Topic: Challenging a Geographical Region Being Declared.
EA's Topic: Challenging the "Crypt of the Popes" at San Callistos.
EA's Topic: The Emergence of the Papacy.
EA's Topic: Things Bound by the Apostles Were Already Bound in Heaven.
TF Challenges: The Concept of Binding and Loosing in Heaven (infallibility) Does Not Come from Scripture.
Lollard's Topic: How Many Bishopricks?
EA and Lollard: The Office of Apostle and Bishop Are Not the Same.
Constantine: Erroneously posits that Pope Zosimus accepting Celestius (and Pelagius) back into the Church was an acceptance and "official teaching" of Pelagianism.
steelikat's Topio: Back to the Difference Between Apostles and Bishops.
TF's Topic: Infallibility is a Novel Topic.
TF's Acceptance: Error Cannot Be Bound or Loosed in Heaven.
Since you bring it up, howabout that dragon? :P
John, I didn't bring it up... you did! ;-) However, since you insist...
The story of Bel and the Dragon revolves around the false god worship of the people - and Daniel would not bow down to the "dragon god" - instead, he challenged the king that he (Daniel) would be able to kill the dragon. The king believed the god would be able to fend for itself, and he agreed to let Daniel attempt this - and Daniel successfully killed the dragon.
Could this be symbolic of something else? Like Daniel refusing to bow before the gods of the king and in his refusal so infuriated the people that the king was forced to throw Daniel into the lion's den? Daniel further defeats their gods through the One God protecting him through the night in the lion's den - and further confirms that Daniel's God is the One, True God. I say this is most definitely a plausible explanation of the "Dragon."
Post a Comment