Roman Catholic and The Bible.

[tom]

Popeman,

You wrote:

It appears that Michelle still missed the point of Matt 18 (vis-à-vis ACTS 15)

I am afraid you are the one missing the point, because Matthew 18 and Acts 15 have nothing to do with each other.

Matthew 18 is about resolving relationship problems between brothers which have been caused by one sinning against the other, and restoring their relationships; Acts 15 was about making official declarations about Christian doctrine.

Matthew 18 talks about settling the relational difficulties within a congregation; Acts 15 deals with a decision by the gathered apostles affecting the very contents of the Gospel that shall be preached worldwide.

Matthew 18 results in church discipline of an unrepentant sinner; no sinners were identified, accused or excommunicated in Acts 15.

Since they have nothing in common, in terms of subject matter, can you tell me why I should accept this common Roman Catholic association of the two passages?

And while you are at it, could we prevail upon you to answer Homer's earlier questions (or any questions that you have been asked, for that matter?)?

Steve,

Here's my post from the thread "Is the Catholic Church the Kingdom?", it may answer your observation of Matt 18 and Acts 15.

Okay, I can agree that Paul had revelation of the Gospel. And the issue of circumcision come up earlier in Acts 11. But it was not defined! You seem to brush off the fact that Paul and Barnabas didn't anathematize the false teachers that came from Judea to Antioch teaching false doctrine. Remember Matt 18:17, " But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector." They had to go to the Church first. As you say Paul knew the new rules of the Gospel and knew they were teaching wrong doctrine.

This is the whole context of Acts 15. If Paul, no dummy to the revelation of the Gospel, knew, and he did, that circumcision was no longer required. Why not stop there?

Acts 15:6, "Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter." Sounds like this issue was still not quite worked out. Still not defined!

Acts 15:7, "And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up..." Still seems to me the Apostles and elders were not totally sure if circumcision was necessary for saving of their souls!

Acts 15:23, " It is written to the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. Greetings!" Not written to the false teachers! Obviously the Christians in Antioch must have had this question or when it was brought to their attention they would have said to themselves, 'well maybe we do have to be circumcised'.

Acts 15:24, "Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, "[You must] be circumcised and keep the law"--to whom we gave no [such] commandment--". Why would they be unsettled if Paul had revelation from God on the Gospel. While I can see your point that they may have been unsettled that the Church in Jerusalem gave bad doctrine. In context, "ancient Jewish custom of circumcision taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." Their souls would be unsettled, could they maybe not be saved?! Would we have to be circumcised to save our souls?

Acts 15:28, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:" Once again the way this is written the Christians in Antioch had to have legitimate questions about following the rite of circumcision. Not just the question of Peter and the Church being wrong.

Acts 15:28-29, "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell." Now we have some more things that need to be hashed out. Do we abstain from blood and strangled things? The Christians, including Paul and Barnabas, did not seem to object to these ancient rules. Why not? Because they had not yet been defined.


This is where I think your argument falls apart;

"Which church?" There is only one Church, under one Head. It is found wherever there are true followers of Jesus. Disputes can be brought before the segment of that church with which one is in regular contact. You might find this logistically impractical, or personally unacceptable, but you have never been able to show the scriptural defect in my reasoning.

If what you wrote is how Christians are to settle moral issues then they never should have left Antioch. The Church in Antioch sent Paul and Barnabas to another Church to get an answer.

I can see your view on the Antioch Church going to see if the Jerusalem Church was teaching false doctrine. I hope you can see my view mainly when we take it in light of Peter getting the keys, (Matt 16:19), and after we have exhausted our Christian options we are to take it to the Church, (Matt 18:17).

Tom

[darinhouston]

As far as I know the RCC has never changed a Doctrine in all that time.

Just for one pretty close to home --- has the RCC had a consistent message on the eternal state of those of us "outside the Roman church?"

Darin,

As defined by the doctrine, they are still outside the Church! Think of it as an umbrella. The Church is the center rod the farther we get away from the center,the closer we get to the edge and the protection of the umbrella/Church.


Tom

I assume what you say fairly represents the present Doctrine, but it is not exactly how it's been presented by the church (to the world at large, anyway) -- "farther away" is pretty ambiguous and subjective, and the church has been pretty unambiguous and specific at various times over the years.

However, the question I asked was not to identify the present doctrine, but to ask you if the church has been consistent in its doctrine in this regard. I understand one's ignorance has at times been an issue, and at times the Lutheran communion was accepted and others not, etc... My refusal to submit to the RCC cannot be said to be "ignorant," so what of someone like me, and who would decide if I'm "too far?"

[Homer]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for your response, You wrote:

In response to you wanting an answer to how the RCC would handle a Matt 18 situation. Most can be resolved between a group of RCC Christians and it would have to be more than a lie.

So if I understand you correctly, you are saying the passage about church disciplne in Matthew 18 is not about relations between Christians and how to resolve a problem when, say, one brother defames another? I am having a difficult time imagining what kind of offense one would commit against a brother that your Roman Church would take an interest in. It seems your church is no better at resolving these problems than any Christian congregation would be.

As Steve has shown, your Church has conflated the situations in Matthew 18 and Acts 15. This does not make much of an impression regarding the ability of an institution, that claims infallibity, to expound on the scriptures when a "Berean" can see that the passages are about different things.

[darinhouston]

I'm still hoping for an answer on the historic continuity of RCC doctrine regarding those outside the church, but another one strikes me -- how about indulgences? Has the RCC view of indulgences changed materiallly between now and even the Middle Ages?

It's difficult to determine RCC doctrine in the early years (or even confirm that such an institution existed), but let's assume Paul was regarded as an apostle in the line of the bishops today and that his doctrine would be at least as authoritative as the present Pope or Magisterium. If so, then how is it that the church today sanctions and bestows holy titles of honor upon its clergy and encourages such terms as "Holy Father" and "Vicar of Christ" and the like when referring to the pope (or even lesser honorary titles on bishops and priests) along with the vestments and regalia associated with the Jewish leadership that underlied Pauls concern? I don't intend to be disrespectful, but do you think Peter was running around having people kiss his ring and wearing robes and miters and the sort? When did that begin, and why?

[steve]

Or what about Paul's teaching that bishops should be married men as one of their qualifications for leadership of the church (1 Tim.3:2-5)? Is there any possibility of imagining a starker contrast between plain statements in scripture and the official policy of modern popes?

[popeman]

Dear Tom,

Did you go to Ash Wed Mass? The ashes only help remind us what sinners we are, not endless debaters. Go have a good stiff drink.

As I read, it appears no one on this site believes that passing/professing/teaching false doctrine is a sin. That being said/believed, then Steve, et al, would be correct in their thought process...ACTS 15 (false doctrinal teaching) is not a sin. End of argument...grab a glass of white wine if a Whiskey Sour is too strong!! haha. Popeman

[steve]

Popeman, I am reminding you of this post that was addressed to you, because it explains why your last post is going to be deleted. I will leave your post up for 24 hours to give you and others time to see that your post did not meet the criterion I said that you must meet. I wrote to you:

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?

Popeman, you are not conversing like an honest participant here. You do not answer questions that are put to you, and you do not make a serious effort to understand the answers that people give when you ask them questions (or else you forget immediately, and respond as if you have not read them). This is not acceptable behavior at this forum. You have been told what the standards are here, and you apparently wish to flout them, or else you have no capacity to understand them. In either case, you do not belong in the discussion. Roman Catholics are welcome here by the hundreds, but they have to be as honest as everyone else. I am giving you one more chance to prove that you wish to participate here. If your next post does not answer two questions, it will be your last post here:

1) Please answer directly Homer's questions about how the discipline is conducted in the Catholic Church when one brother sins against another;

2) Please answer the one question I asked in this post.

... If you are an honest man, you should easily be able to give honest answers to the two questions. If you are not an honest man, you are finished here.

You apparently do not have enough dignity to even attempt to show yourself to be an honest man. Your post will be deleted tomorrow, as well as any others that you post without including answers to the two questions above. If I have to delete two or more of your posts, you will be banned again—this time permanently.

[tom]

As far as I know the RCC has never changed a Doctrine in all that time.

Just for one pretty close to home --- has the RCC had a consistent message on the eternal state of those of us "outside the Roman church?"

Darin,

As defined by the doctrine, they are still outside the Church! Think of it as an umbrella. The Church is the center rod the farther we get away from the center,the closer we get to the edge and the protection of the umbrella/Church.


Tom[/quote]


My refusal to submit to the RCC cannot be said to be "ignorant," so what of someone like me, and who would decide if I'm "too far?"[/quote]

Darin,

Once again I think that "too far" would be up to you the individual. If you do not submit to the Vicar of Christ, the Pope, and the Churches doctrines you are the one that says now I'm too far away from center. Is a 7th Day Adventist or an LDS still Christian? They would have to conclude that in their own hearts. If they start to promote/teach false doctrine, (different from Church doctrine), then Matt 18 would have to be acted upon.


Tom

[tom]

On the Pope's infallibility, I dug this up awhile back and it struck me as something to be very uncomfortable with (especially the "vicar" of Christ part).

From the Creeds (vol 1):

§33. The Vatican Decrees, Continued. The Infallibility Decree.

II. The First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ (constitutio dogmatica prima de ecclesia Christi).
It was passed, with two dissenting votes, in the fourth public session, July 18, 1870. It treats, in four chapters—(1) on the institution of the Apostolic Primacy in the blessed Peter; (2) on the perpetuity of St. Peter's Primacy in the Roman Pontiff; (3) on the power and nature of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff; (4) on the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff.
The new features are contained in the last two chapters, which teach Papal Absolutism and Papal Infallibility . The third chapter vindicates to the Roman Pontiff a superiority of ordinary episcopal (not simply an extraordinary primatial) power over all other Churches, and an immediate jurisdiction, to which all Catholics, both pastors and people, are bound to submit in matters not only of faith and morals, but even of discipline and government. [See Note #299] He is, therefore, the Bishop of Bishops, over every single Bishop, and over all Bishops put together; he is in the fullest sense the Vicar of Christ, and all Bishops are simply Vicars of the Pope. The fourth chapter teaches and defines, as a divinely revealed dogma, that the Roman Pontiff, when speaking from his chair (ex cathedra ), i.e., in his official capacity, to the Christian world on subjects relating to faith or morals, is infallible, and that such definitions are irreformable (i.e., final and irreversible) in and of themselves, and not in consequence of the consent of the Church. [See Note #300]

I'm sorry, but giving that much power and authority to any one man on earth crosses a very precarious line IMO.

Christopher,

Boy, you sound like Korah (Num 16).

Tom

[tom]

On a related note, isn't the Pope also considered to be infallible when he (or is that "He") makes a pronouncement "ex cathedra?" Isn't that separate from the pronouncemens of the Magisterium? Can a papal bull or encyclical or the like be wrong? Forgive my ignorance on some of these things -- it's such a convoluted system to me that, even as a lawyer, I have trouble keeping all these religious "rules" and "systems" straight. (sort of reminds one of the Pharisaic system, doesn't it?) When the RCC declares a person a heretic, who does that, exactly? When the church excommunicates an individual, how is that done? By the priest? Surely, the Magisterium doesn't consider all petitions of that sort -- therefore, could something as important as the eternal state of an individual's soul be decided by a fallible body?

This is related to Homer's question, I think.

Though I added a touch of sarcasm, please do help me understand this -- I'm indeed curious.

Darin,

Let me ask you; when Moses gave a decree was it binding on the people or was it just a suggestion? While I'll agree the RCC does, at times, seem to be a little like the Pharisaic system. But remember Jesus gave their authority to another, (Mark 12:1-9). And 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).

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).

Tom