Popeman,
If you wonder where your long post went, it was excommunicated! You wrote many paragraphs (all addressed to Tom), and said nothing about the two questions that I said you must address in your next post, if you want to stay around here. You must have thought I was joking around (as you were doing in the deleted post). I would remind you that, if I have to delete one more post of yours, you will be permanently banned from this forum. Why not just answer the questions?
Roman Catholic and The Bible.
Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.
Tom,
You wrote:
I don't read anywhere of the Pharisees having God-given authority. The only religious authorities known in the Old Testament were priest and prophets. The Pharisees were a man-made movement, arising sometime after the Maccabean Period. They were not established by God, nor did they have God-given authority—which is why Jesus defied their rules continually (e.g., their sabbath expectations, their hand-washing rules, and their "avoidance-of-sinners" policies).
When Jesus told His disciples to do what the Pharisees tell you, it was in the context of their sitting in Moses' seat, in the synagogues (another man-made institution). Why should the disciples obey the things the Pharisees say from Moses' seat? Because that was the seat from which the Law of God was taught, which the disciples were obliged to honor. Therefore, Jesus instructed them, "Do what the Pharisees teach (because that is the Law of God they are talking about), but do not imitate them (because they talk but do not walk the Law)."
Thus the only similarity between the Pharisees and the pope is that both are teachers whose "authority" is recognized in man-made organizations. When the pope, or anyone else, speaks according to the word of God, you will find me observing everything he says, because I recognize the authority of the word of God—though not of every individual who speaks it. When they "speak not according to this word," it is proof that "there is no light in them" (Isa.8:20).
In other words, the Roman Catholics do not paractice Matthew 18:15-17, which instructs the one sinned against to approach the sinning party. This is not done in your church? Then why are you always pointing to this passage as some kind of support of the Roman Catholic Church. You yourself admit that they do not follow this teaching!
Yours is a better answer than any popeman was apparently able to give (none, so far), though he still has one more chance to try.
You wrote:
Jesus, even though the Pharisees were corrupt and had lost what God was all about, told the disciples "do whatever they tell you", (Matt 23:2-3)...Jesus knew their God given authority just like centuries before when David's men were going to kill Saul. David said he would not allow it because Saul was God's anointed, (1Sam 24:4-8).
I don't read anywhere of the Pharisees having God-given authority. The only religious authorities known in the Old Testament were priest and prophets. The Pharisees were a man-made movement, arising sometime after the Maccabean Period. They were not established by God, nor did they have God-given authority—which is why Jesus defied their rules continually (e.g., their sabbath expectations, their hand-washing rules, and their "avoidance-of-sinners" policies).
When Jesus told His disciples to do what the Pharisees tell you, it was in the context of their sitting in Moses' seat, in the synagogues (another man-made institution). Why should the disciples obey the things the Pharisees say from Moses' seat? Because that was the seat from which the Law of God was taught, which the disciples were obliged to honor. Therefore, Jesus instructed them, "Do what the Pharisees teach (because that is the Law of God they are talking about), but do not imitate them (because they talk but do not walk the Law)."
Thus the only similarity between the Pharisees and the pope is that both are teachers whose "authority" is recognized in man-made organizations. When the pope, or anyone else, speaks according to the word of God, you will find me observing everything he says, because I recognize the authority of the word of God—though not of every individual who speaks it. When they "speak not according to this word," it is proof that "there is no light in them" (Isa.8:20).
So, if the process described in Matthew 18:15-17 is ever practiced in the Catholic Church, you are not aware of it. This means that, if your brother sins against you, and you would like to follow Jesus' instructions in Matthew 18, you really wouldn't be able to do so. I think that places Roman Catholics at a serious disadvantage with reference to their being able to follow Jesus' instructions.As far as excommunication I don't really know the process. I don't know how Moses handled his problems either! I do know that Fidel Castro has been excommunicated and can no longer receive communion in the RCC.
I don't think there are many "officially" excommunicated persons declared by the RCC. Some may not be allowed to receive communion due to a mortal sin in their lives. But the priest/layperson doesn't ask, it's up to that persons conscience that needs reconciliation, (Matt 5:22-24, 1Cor 11:27-28).
In other words, the Roman Catholics do not paractice Matthew 18:15-17, which instructs the one sinned against to approach the sinning party. This is not done in your church? Then why are you always pointing to this passage as some kind of support of the Roman Catholic Church. You yourself admit that they do not follow this teaching!
Yours is a better answer than any popeman was apparently able to give (none, so far), though he still has one more chance to try.
-
darinhouston
- Posts: 3123
- Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am
Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.
I would suggest these things are not completely up to the individual in the RCC. If I told a priest I was not a Catholic or a Lutheran, would he give me Communion? If I were Lutheran today, he would (depending on what synod I am in good standing with, of course), but this was not always thus, was it Tom? It isn't even true for all priests in the RCC today, is it?
If I told a priest I had sin that I had confessed to the Lord and repented from, but wasn't prepared to tell him about, would he likewise give me Communion? Would this be true of all priests?
I suggest that you just don't have the monolithic organization you think you do. You just have to listen to the priests on the talking head television shows to realize that there is as much difference in doctrine being taught from some pulpits in the RCC church as there is from non-Catholics.
I am very interested to see how the pope will handle the holocaust denying bishop that has been threatened with excommunication. Do you think all popes throughout the ages would have treated even this matter of excommunication using the same criteria? Surely, excommunication is the sort of thing that is guided carefully by official doctrine and not relegated to whims of popes acting outside of their official capacity (non-ex cathedra).
If I told a priest I had sin that I had confessed to the Lord and repented from, but wasn't prepared to tell him about, would he likewise give me Communion? Would this be true of all priests?
I suggest that you just don't have the monolithic organization you think you do. You just have to listen to the priests on the talking head television shows to realize that there is as much difference in doctrine being taught from some pulpits in the RCC church as there is from non-Catholics.
I am very interested to see how the pope will handle the holocaust denying bishop that has been threatened with excommunication. Do you think all popes throughout the ages would have treated even this matter of excommunication using the same criteria? Surely, excommunication is the sort of thing that is guided carefully by official doctrine and not relegated to whims of popes acting outside of their official capacity (non-ex cathedra).
Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.
steve wrote:If Acts 15 was an example of Matthew 18 in action, then who was brought up for discipline and "turned into a pagan" in Acts 15?
Steve, Homer and everyone,
Maybe I missed something in my explanation of Acts 15. We are discussing how sin is dealt with in the Christian Church, right?
Once again, Matt 18 = one Christian sins against another Christian, they are to resolve it between the two. If it can't be resolved one or two more Christians are to get involved and try to resolve it. (Note: in the resolution process the other Christian may be the one who needs to change!)
If it still can't be resolved by this, now group of Christians, we are to take it to the Bible! Just kidding! We are to take it to the Church. Listen to how serious the writer gets; "if he refuses to listen EVEN to the Church,..."
This is where I think Homer is misrepresenting "two or more in My name...". Matt 18 is showing Christians how to handle a problem within Christianity. In v15 we have at least two Christians/brothers. So now we've satisfied your criterion of "where two or more are gathered in My name there I am." But wait, Jesus tells us to go beyond two. We are to take it to MORE Christians. Surely this will satisfy the "two or more in My name...". But wait, there's more! Take it to the Church!
As far as a pagan/tax collector being just shunned from the Christian community. Yes! But much more. Pagans/tax collectors were considered the worst of sinners. They were lost. They, if anyone, were the ones going to hell.
So now that we have Homer's question answered, let's get back to Acts 15 and no one being excommunicated in the example of discipline of Matt 18. Can you see that Acts 15 is carried out from two to more and finally taking it to the Jerusalem Church? I hope you can. After all you expect me to see your view I would hope this forum is not a one way street!
If you can see Matt 18 in action in Acts 15 and you wonder why no one was excommunicated? No one needed excommunication! Acts 15:7, "And when there had been MUCH dispute, Peter rose up and said to them:...that by MY mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe." v12, "Then all the multitude kept silent..." v13, "And after they had become silent, James answered,..." James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, confirms what Peter has just stated. v19, "Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God,..." James seals the deal!
v22, " ...the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own..." The Church sends out their own with Paul and Barnabas with THEIR letter back to Antioch confirming what the Church had decreed. v30, " So when they were sent off, they came to Antioch; and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the letter." v31, "When they had read it, they rejoiced over its encouragement."
They are glad and accepted what the Church has decreed. There is no need for excommunication the issue is resolved!
Tom
Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.
No, he shouldn't give communion. Why would you? To you it would be idolatry. By the way, I couldn't/shouldn't take communion in a Protestant church either. In the opposite fashion it would be blasphemy.darinhouston wrote:I would suggest these things are not completely up to the individual in the RCC. If I told a priest I was not a Catholic or a Lutheran, would he give me Communion?
I would hope he could convince you to confess the way the Bible teaches us. James 5:14, "...call the elders of the church to pray over him..." v15, "... If he has sinned, he will be forgiven." v16, "Therefore confess your sins to each other...". But he should accept that God is big enough to forgive and should give communion.If I told a priest I had sin that I had confessed to the Lord and repented from, but wasn't prepared to tell him about, would he likewise give me Communion? Would this be true of all priests?
Tom
Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.
Steve,steve wrote:Tom,
You wrote:
Jesus, even though the Pharisees were corrupt and had lost what God was all about, told the disciples "do whatever they tell you", (Matt 23:2-3)...Jesus knew their God given authority just like centuries before when David's men were going to kill Saul. David said he would not allow it because Saul was God's anointed, (1Sam 24:4-8).
I don't read anywhere of the Pharisees having God-given authority.
This deserves an answer but I'm going to bed. I'll try to answer it tomorrow. I hope you don't remove me like popeman.
Tom
Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.
Tom,
To my knowledge, you have never been threatened with being banned. It seems that you actually attempt to interact and to deal with questions that people ask you—popeman has shown no interest in doing so. I really don't expect that we will be hearing from him any more, even though he has not yet been banned. He knows that his next post must contain answers to questions, which I don't think he wants to give.
As for your answers, I am perplexed about how you think your answers apply to the subject asked. You wrote:
1. The suggestion that Homer's question was answered (on this forum somewhere?);
2. The claim that, in Acts 15, the first two steps of Matthew 18 had been taken prior to the Jerusalem Council;
3. The suggestion that it is only fair for us to see the validity of your points, because we expect you to see the validity of ours.
On point #1: I must say that there has been no answer given to Homer's question that I could understand. As I recall, you said that you did not know how one would proceed in the Roman Catholic Church to resolve a conflict between yourself and a Catholic brother along the lines of Matthew 18. That means we still don't have an answer. The irony in this is that you have been criticizing Protestants on just this point: there is no obvious way (in your opinion) for non-Catholics to facilitate Matthew 18. Yet, according to you, there is apparently no obvious way for a Catholic (e.g., yourself) to follow the teaching in Matthew 18.
On point #2: I have not read in Acts 15, or elsewhere, that the Jerusalem Council convened as the third step of Matthew 18. I know of no place or time in which steps one and two were taken. First, who sinned, and who confronted him privately about it (step one)? Second, when were the two or three witnesses brought in to confront that same man (step two)? Finally, when was that same man brought before the church (step three)? As I read Acts 15, I can not find the slightest hint that the Council met in order to bring any person under church discipline (as would be the case if they were engaged in a Matthew 18 procedure). If I am wrong, can you identify which person that was, and when the prior two steps had been taken?
On point #3: When it comes to seeking truth, the procedure does not involve trading points back and forth—"Okay, you made a good point there, now it's my turn. You have to acknowledge that one of my points is a good one!" I do not request that you acknowledge the validity of my points as a matter of fair-play. I only want you to accept them if they are true. If they are not, I want for you to show me why they are not true. There is no place for saying, "No fair! You made five valid points without recognizing any of mine as valid!" You want me to accept (as a matter of balancing the score) that your point #2 (above) was valid. But it isn't. I am still waiting to see if either you or popeman have anything resembling a biblical case to present in answer to our inquiries and challenges. You, at least, seem to be trying. For that I commend you. But the answers you are giving do not have a foundation in truth. I am not under obligation to say, "Okay, I have been right enough times. I guess it's about time for me to see the matter your way." I will see it your way when and if you can present a case that really deals with the scripture, instead of playing with it.
I think you and popeman see this as a contest of some kind. The rest of us are interested in the truth and in hearing what claim your position may have to belonging to that realm.
To my knowledge, you have never been threatened with being banned. It seems that you actually attempt to interact and to deal with questions that people ask you—popeman has shown no interest in doing so. I really don't expect that we will be hearing from him any more, even though he has not yet been banned. He knows that his next post must contain answers to questions, which I don't think he wants to give.
As for your answers, I am perplexed about how you think your answers apply to the subject asked. You wrote:
There are three parts to this paragraph:So now that we have Homer's question answered, let's get back to Acts 15 and no one being excommunicated in the example of discipline of Matt 18. Can you see that Acts 15 is carried out from two to more and finally taking it to the Jerusalem Church? I hope you can. After all you expect me to see your view I would hope this forum is not a one way street!
1. The suggestion that Homer's question was answered (on this forum somewhere?);
2. The claim that, in Acts 15, the first two steps of Matthew 18 had been taken prior to the Jerusalem Council;
3. The suggestion that it is only fair for us to see the validity of your points, because we expect you to see the validity of ours.
On point #1: I must say that there has been no answer given to Homer's question that I could understand. As I recall, you said that you did not know how one would proceed in the Roman Catholic Church to resolve a conflict between yourself and a Catholic brother along the lines of Matthew 18. That means we still don't have an answer. The irony in this is that you have been criticizing Protestants on just this point: there is no obvious way (in your opinion) for non-Catholics to facilitate Matthew 18. Yet, according to you, there is apparently no obvious way for a Catholic (e.g., yourself) to follow the teaching in Matthew 18.
On point #2: I have not read in Acts 15, or elsewhere, that the Jerusalem Council convened as the third step of Matthew 18. I know of no place or time in which steps one and two were taken. First, who sinned, and who confronted him privately about it (step one)? Second, when were the two or three witnesses brought in to confront that same man (step two)? Finally, when was that same man brought before the church (step three)? As I read Acts 15, I can not find the slightest hint that the Council met in order to bring any person under church discipline (as would be the case if they were engaged in a Matthew 18 procedure). If I am wrong, can you identify which person that was, and when the prior two steps had been taken?
On point #3: When it comes to seeking truth, the procedure does not involve trading points back and forth—"Okay, you made a good point there, now it's my turn. You have to acknowledge that one of my points is a good one!" I do not request that you acknowledge the validity of my points as a matter of fair-play. I only want you to accept them if they are true. If they are not, I want for you to show me why they are not true. There is no place for saying, "No fair! You made five valid points without recognizing any of mine as valid!" You want me to accept (as a matter of balancing the score) that your point #2 (above) was valid. But it isn't. I am still waiting to see if either you or popeman have anything resembling a biblical case to present in answer to our inquiries and challenges. You, at least, seem to be trying. For that I commend you. But the answers you are giving do not have a foundation in truth. I am not under obligation to say, "Okay, I have been right enough times. I guess it's about time for me to see the matter your way." I will see it your way when and if you can present a case that really deals with the scripture, instead of playing with it.
I think you and popeman see this as a contest of some kind. The rest of us are interested in the truth and in hearing what claim your position may have to belonging to that realm.
-
darinhouston
- Posts: 3123
- Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am
Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.
I agree I don't see any reason Tom might be considered for banning, and agree he attempts to interact (fairly I might add), but for some reason he still can't answer the simple questions. Tom, you do seem to respond to the additional commentary or the elucidating rhetorical questions, but don't seem to get back to answer the main questions being asked.steve wrote:Tom,
To my knowledge, you have never been threatened with being banned. It seems that you actually attempt to interact and to deal with questions that people ask you
For example, you answered several of the questions about today's practices in the church, but after saying you don't know of any doctrines that have changed over the years, I asked a simple question with a few examples (expanded by Steve) to see if you believed those particular doctrines had remained consistent, and your answers all relate to the present practices.
I'm patient, but can you try to answer that question sometime? That speaks more to the claims of authority of the RCC than does any particular present practice.
Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.
Darin and all,darinhouston wrote: I'm patient, but can you try to answer that question sometime? That speaks more to the claims of authority of the RCC than does any particular present practice.
I must be missing some questions. Can you give me only the ones you really want answers to? I know some are rhetorical questions and I brush them off. Maybe you wanted answers to them. Please tell me what I am not answering.
One thing I'd like to point out: popeman and I are being inundated by questions from the people on this forum. We, at least I, can not keep up with all the questions and answer them all. I have noticed that you all haven't answered our questions either! Can you give us a little break and let us answer at least the most pertinent ones? I feet like Custer at his last stand!
Tom