INDULGENCES

[KiwiChristian]

INDULGENCES.

Definition: A person after confessing his sins to a priest, in order to be free from the punishment still due for his sins, requires the church to pray for his rehabilitation. 

The person must do penance works such as fasting, making pilgrimages, giving money, making prayers or inflicting pain on oneself, as a penalty for sins committed.

Historically, people found it easier to pay money to the Roman Catholic church than to pray for long hours. The Roman Catholic church preferred money because the Pope ran out of cash in building St Peter’s Basilica in Rome. So the Roman Catholic church issued the person with an official statement that he had received release from the penalties through the payment of money. This document was called an indulgence. They could be bought for
friends and relatives who had died and passed into purgatory, thus shortening the time that they would have to spend there.

Martin Luther objected to Tetzel, a Catholic indulgence seller, who publicly announced to people that if they put a coin in a box, a dead relative's soul would immediately pop out of purgatory. His advertising slogan was: "As the coin in you pop, a soul from purgatory doth hop."

Answer: Obviously, this teaching cannot be found in the Bible. After Word War II, the Archbishop of Winnipeg asked mothers who had sons killed in the war, to pay $40 to have masses said on behalf of their sons to guarantee their salvation and entrance to heaven.
This practice continues in many parts of the world, and accounts 
for the great wealth of the Catholic church as seen in the big cathedrals it builds.

Which Bible verses forbid indulgence selling?

1. Jesus warns against this practice in Matthew 23:14, a verse that Catholics have cut out of modern Bible versions. "Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye devour widows houses, and for a pretense make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."

The Pharisees of Jesus' day, as well as Catholic priests of today, tell widows that their dead husband has gone to purgatory. They ask her if she wants him to go to heaven.

If yes, she will have to pay the priest to say a mass to pray for his soul to leave purgatory. Widows don't usually have much money, so he tells her to sell her house to pay for it. This is how widows houses are devoured by priests who for a pretense make long prayers.

2. The Israelites were forbidden to give money for the dead. "None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him." Psalms 49:7. No gift of money can save another person. Only the blood of Christ can.

3. Peter says: "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold ... but with the precious blood of Christ." 1 Peter 1:18,19. Nobody is redeemed with indulgence money.

4. Simon the sorcerer offered the apostles money so that anyone that he laid hands on would receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 
Peter rebuked him strongly in Acts 8:20-23 saying: "Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the GIFT OF
GOD may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness."

Salvation is the gift of God that each of us must claim freely for ourselves when we call on Christ to be our Saviour. No baptism, eucharist, confessional to a priest, penance, extreme unction, or paying money can save us, only faith in Christ's precious saving blood to pay for our sins.

[Patrick Miron]

On 4/10/2018 at 11:12 PM, KiwiChristian said:

INDULGENCES.

Definition: A person after confessing his sins to a priest, in order to be free from the punishment still due for his sins, requires the church to pray for his rehabilitation. 

The person must do penance works such as fasting, making pilgrimages, giving money, making prayers or inflicting pain on oneself, as a penalty for sins committed.

Historically, people found it easier to pay money to the Roman Catholic church than to pray for long hours. The Roman Catholic church preferred money because the Pope ran out of cash in building St Peter’s Basilica in Rome. So the Roman Catholic church issued the person with an official statement that he had received release from the penalties through the payment of money. This document was called an indulgence. They could be bought for
friends and relatives who had died and passed into purgatory, thus shortening the time that they would have to spend there.

Martin Luther objected to Tetzel, a Catholic indulgence seller, who publicly announced to people that if they put a coin in a box, a dead relative's soul would immediately pop out of purgatory. His advertising slogan was: "As the coin in you pop, a soul from purgatory doth hop."

Answer: Obviously, this teaching cannot be found in the Bible. After Word War II, the Archbishop of Winnipeg asked mothers who had sons killed in the war, to pay $40 to have masses said on behalf of their sons to guarantee their salvation and entrance to heaven.
This practice continues in many parts of the world, and accounts 
for the great wealth of the Catholic church as seen in the big cathedrals it builds.

Which Bible verses forbid indulgence selling?

1. Jesus warns against this practice in Matthew 23:14, a verse that Catholics have cut out of modern Bible versions. "Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye devour widows houses, and for a pretense make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."

The Pharisees of Jesus' day, as well as Catholic priests of today, tell widows that their dead husband has gone to purgatory. They ask her if she wants him to go to heaven.

If yes, she will have to pay the priest to say a mass to pray for his soul to leave purgatory. Widows don't usually have much money, so he tells her to sell her house to pay for it. This is how widows houses are devoured by priests who for a pretense make long prayers.

2. The Israelites were forbidden to give money for the dead. "None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him." Psalms 49:7. No gift of money can save another person. Only the blood of Christ can.

3. Peter says: "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold ... but with the precious blood of Christ." 1 Peter 1:18,19. Nobody is redeemed with indulgence money.

4. Simon the sorcerer offered the apostles money so that anyone that he laid hands on would receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 
Peter rebuked him strongly in Acts 8:20-23 saying: "Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the GIFT OF
GOD may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness."

Salvation is the gift of God that each of us must claim freely for ourselves when we call on Christ to be our Saviour. No baptism, eucharist, confessional to a priest, penance, extreme unction, or paying money can save us, only faith in Christ's precious saving blood to pay for our sins.

 

My New Friend, with your broad, but partial , and often incorrect knowledge of Catholicism, I’m going to venture a guess you’re a former “catholic.” A disgruntled one for some personal reason

Definition: A person after confessing his sins to a priest, in order to be free from the punishment still due for his sins, requires the church to pray for his rehabilitation. 

The topic of Indulgences is a profound and very complex issue which cannot be explained nor understood in a simplistic manner; hence this will be yet another lengthy POST Reply.

So I will make MY REPLY in Daily-installments:

START OF INSTALLMET #1 ON INDULGENCES

Hmmmm, NOT QUITE. We confess our sins to a priest [1] Because it is a carry- over practice of the OT. {Exo. 26:1; Lev. 5:16-18} and [2] Because it is directly, & precisely commanded by Jesus to do so. {John 20: 19-23}  [3] Sacramental Confession has only a Initial role on indulgences. [4] For the forgiveness of sin GODS WAY {not a post Reformation 16^th Century-human invention  [5] for the KNOWN {not just hoped for;  the actual-KNOWN forgiveness of sin; even Mortal sins {1 John5:16-17} and the GRACE that flows through this Sacrament to help us not sin again.

Questioning Indulgences indicates a lack of necessary understanding of the Power and Authority of ALL THE KEYS TO HEAVEN, which needs a fuller explanation before getting into the depths of Indulgences.

So I will make MY REPLY in installments:

I Catholic                           

Key’s “to The Kingdom”

By Patrick Miron

The Prophet Isiah, more than 500 years before the BIRTH of Christ, foretold this about Christ and His future POPES:

Isaiah 22:21-23 [21] And I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda. [22] And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open. {See Mt 16:18-19} 23] And I will fasten him as a peg in a sure place, and he shall be for a throne of glory to the house of his father.”

Key’s to the Kingdom Explained

This topic is perhaps the most debated single topic in the entire New Testament, and for “good cause”. If we Catholics are able to prove what the Bible say’s as actually being Divine Will [and we can], then all other faiths would seem to have no, or at least extremely shaky grounds on with to found and to prove their faiths. This really is a battle of “Right and Wrong.” And sadly it simply is not explained and told often enough to stem the tide of the “flood gates” of apostates leaving the Catholic Church, for other faiths, often seen to be “as good,” and better suited to their own wants and beliefs.

The debate centers on the biblical term for “rock” as found in St. Matthews Chapter 16: verses 15-20, which we will cover in detail. But for now I would like to set our foundation by explaining two other words found in that same teaching; and one additional fact.

While it is true that much of the New Testament was written in the Greek Language; the language of the intellectuals; Jesus Himself, the sublime intellectual, spoke a far more common language; the language of the poor, the marginalized, and the under-educated; in other words; the masses. That language Jesus spoke being Aramaic. And this fact will provide a significant evidence in support of our case. 

Mt. 16: 19 “And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven”

I would like to begin the defense of our Catholic Bible teaching by first addressing Verse 19 and the terms Jesus unerringly choose to use.  A foundation ought to start at the bottom. The terms I would like to discuss are the terms “to Bind” and “to Loose.” And to objectively define these two terms, we will reference Strong’s Concordance of the Greek and Hebrew Lexicon, which is an independent, non-Catholic site.

 

Strong’s Lexicon “LOOSE” in Hebrew:

7368 rachaq raw-khak' a primitive root; to widen (in any direction), i.e. (intransitively) recede or (transitively) remove (literally or figuratively, of place or relation):--(a-, be, cast, drive, get, go, keep (self), put, remove, be too, (wander), withdraw) far (away, off), loose, X refrain, very, (be) a good way (off).

8271 shre' sher-ay' (Aramaic) a root corresponding to that of 8293; to free, separate; figuratively, to unravel, commence; by implication (of unloading beasts) to reside:--begin, dissolve, dwell, loose.

Strongs Lexicon “LOOSE” in Greek:

142. airo ah'-ee-ro a primary root; to lift up; by implication, to take up or away; figuratively, to raise (the voice), keep in suspense (the mind), specially, to sail away (i.e. weigh anchor); by Hebraism (compare 5375) to expiate sin:--away with, bear (up), carry, lift up, loose, make to doubt, put away, remove, take (away, up)

630. apoluo ap-ol-oo'-o from 575 and 3089; to free fully, i.e. (literally) relieve, release, dismiss (reflexively, depart), or (figuratively) let die, pardon or (specially) divorce:--(let) depart, dismiss, divorce, forgive, let go, loose, put (se

2673. katargeo kat-arg-eh'-o from 2596 and 691; to be (render) entirely idle (useless), literally or figuratively:--abolish, cease, cumber, deliver, destroy, do away, become (make) of no (none, without) effect, fail, loose, bring (come) to nought, put away (down), vanish away, make void.

By way of explanation:

At the time and place these very precisely chosen words were spoken by Jesus; who being God cannot error. Cannot, but have been keenly aware of what He was saying, and exactly why He was saying it. 

What Jesus intentionally did here was exactly what He set out to do. This was a transfer of power. [If in doubt please read Mt. 10:1-8] But one that was so well known, and commonly recognized at that precise time and place, that its conveyance was actually covered and protected in Jewish Laws of the time. Which might explain why no questions were asked, or no later debates or disputes ensued on Peter’s Leadership issue.

I marvel at the Wisdom of God, although I ought not to. The sheer brilliance of the WORDS God choose, were not merely picturesque; they were shockingly clear and precise, as well as the most accurately descriptive terms that the Apostles [and any other Jews who might have overheard] would hear and then correctly apply to the message being taught by Christ.  What Jesus was saying; what Jesus was doing here was choosing Peter to be His Visar, His Prime Minister. …  For our use these two terms should be considered synonymous in there meaning. … And leaving nothing to “chance” [a term that simply cannot coexist with God], the location Christ choose to make this appointment; and to be sure,  an appointment is exactly what it was, also has great significance to all of us. And in fact may well be the under-girding reason this entire teaching is so often debated.  The location Christ choose was carefully selected to add weight, meaning and emphasis to the message and the very motive Christ had for doing what He was so unerringly intent on accomplishing.

The location of Caesarea Philippi, was located on the coast and was a very large and active shipping magnet location. As a result of its ideal location, it was common that pagan’s from around the globe, at some time, made port there.  And flowing from that reality, this location was home to the area’s largest pagan shrine. This location was purposefully selected by Jesus to make the point that what He was doing, was preparing to battle Satan on “his home grounds.” [Plural]. This New Church and the Faith of that Church [both singular], was and is meant to be the alternative God gives men; so well expressed in the Old Testament Book of  Ecclesiasticus 15:18 “ Before man is life and death, good and evil, that which he shall choose, shall be given to him.”

 Many large cities at that time, were actually walled in cites; with gates that were closed and locked at night, and then reopened again in the morning for trade and business. Jerusalem was, and in fact remains such a city to the present day. The holder of these key’s was a “Visar” or “Prime Minister”; chosen by the King of that city, and answerable to and only to that King. This carrier of the “keys” was empowered to run that cities day to day business in the name of the king, and granted the Power and Authority of that king, and everyone knew it. And this dear friends is exactly, precisely, and fully what God intended, in choosing Peter to hold this critical position, but also in an absolute sense, an essential role from God’s perspective; knowing full well that He was soon to die; and that in order for His One God, One Faith in and through His newly established One Church to flourish in His absence, that there would have to be a top-down organization, and just as critically, someone to man it.

And this reality ought not to be the surprise that certain others would like to pretend it to be. God throughout the entirety of the bible, has with utter consistency, chosen just one man, to be His spokesman, His teacher; to guide, to chide, to teach and to preach on His behalf. Men like Abram [later Abraham who like Peter had his name changed by God]; Moses, Jacob, the Judges and Kings like David, and Solomon; and then the Prophets like Isaiah, and Jeremiah, ending with John the Baptist; the last Prophet, and the one man chosen to introduce Jesus as the long awaited messiah. Just as the kings of the various walled in cities shared their Power and Authority by choosing one man to be given, and accept the authority of His Keys, answerable only to the king [Jesus is “Christ the King”]. So to Christ Choose Peter; the one chosen man, following what had already been a long established practice and tradition, one man, unqualified for the task, in order that there would be no doubt as to whom to Credit for its success; God! Not Peter, and not Peter’s necessary successors, but God!  Is there any room at all to doubt what I just shared? No.

John 17:18-19 “As thou has sent me [Jesus praying in His human nature, to God the Father on behalf of His Apostles, whom He will shortly leave, but not abandon.] I [God] also send them into the world. And for THEM, do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.”

No other,… no other Church or Faith can make the claim that Jesus Christ makes Himself the Personal warranty for all of their Faith-beliefs and Moral teachings, except His Catholic Church, and be able to sustain it.

God; that is, Jesus Christ offers Himself to the Father both as evidence of Blessed Lords intent and desire to establish One God, With One Faith and in and through one, and just one Church; His Catholic Church, that alone will be guided, inspired and protected to share the Fullness of His Truths. … 

Now let’s look at the entirety of the passage in question; dissect it, and see if there is any, even the slightest bit of wiggle room for other man made competing faiths and churches in it that might be used as a justification for their competing faith beliefs. I mean no lack of charity here; but he entire basis for the Catholic Church; what we teach, preach and practice is at stake, so there is charity in the truth that is shared here. When Pope Benedict the XVI was elected; from the balcony of Saint Peters; he shared this irrefutable wisdom. … ”There cannot be your truth and my truth or there would be no truth.” AMEN!

           

God has blessed me with a most wonderful friend. She is a convert from the Angelina Faith; has expertise in church history, worked for several years as a missionary, and is an attorney. From time to time I share without identifying the person of whom I’m speaking about with her, just to make sure I’m being clear and am on the right track. The brief comments below, follow that kind of discussion on this very topic that I was having with a possible convert. I have her permission to share it.

Comments added by Marianne

{A convert; a missionary; a church historian and an attorney and dear friend}

“That was a great reply! Now, she'll be armed against protestant claims that "petra" and "petros" are different words. They were in Attic Greek, centuries before Christ, but in Koine Greek, they were the same word with feminine/masculine endings. And, of course, protestant skeptics overlook the evidence of Peter's title in Aramaic altogether!

A small interesting point about the transfiguration and Simon's appointment as first pope. It happened at the headwaters of the Jordan, at the site of an older temple of the pagan Hellenistic god Pan and the later white marble temple Herod built to Caesar Augustus. There, a site that had been dedicated to false gods - imaginary and human - is supplanted by the creation of the one, holy, apostolic, AND visible Church. Here, where the headwaters of the Jordan arise in a great fountain, on the mountain of Caesaria Phillipi, Jesus establishes the new order. I find that a thrilling image. Where there had been superstition, fear, and slavery, Jesus creates Mother Church, to guide and preserve us. And he gives us Peter, the Rock, our Holy Father, to stand upon that high place to inspire and lead us. She is a visible Church, created to stand high upon a mountaintop, led by a human. This is another rebuttal of protestant theology that the Church is an invisible entity. The Church is a visible, human institution not some airy-fairy "spiritual" idea. One can go to that mountain today and stand where Peter stood and watch the waters of baptism well up out of the ground. Jesus gave us physical touchstones to confirm our faith: water, bread, wine, a Pope. “End of Quote

Mt.16:15-19 “He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on [you] this rock I will build my church, [singular] and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. [19] I will give you[all implied here] 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." There is exclusivity and directness is these words.

With a right understanding; there exist no room for doubt; no room for competing faith beliefs and churches. Catholics would be well advised to turn the table on the doubters, on the unbeliever’s and ask them to prove their right to compete with what God Ordained. Both the bible and history prove our claims as being the one true Church established by Christ.

Isaiah 22:22-24 Re: PETER (and Jesus) “And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father's house. And they will hang on him the whole weight of his father's house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons” [One MIGHT ask; where is the prophesy of the post Reformation churches?]

Mt. 28: 19-20 “Go therefore YOU and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded YOU; and lo, I am with YOU always, to the close of the age."

John 10: 1-2 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door [ My one true  Church]  but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber; but he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.

Eph. 2:19 “So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [singular] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple [singular] in the Lord;  in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”

John 17: 18-19 “As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth”

“As My Father has sent “Me,” {Jesus both God and man}, even so I [God] send you.”

Haydock’s Catholic Commentary [widely recognized throughout the years as perhaps the best… Written in the late 1800’s.]

Ver. 21. As the Father hath sent me. The word mission, when applied to our Saviour Christ, sometimes signifies his eternal procession from the Father, and sometimes his mission, as he was sent into the world to become man, and the Redeemer of mankind: the first mission agrees with him, as the eternal Son of God; the second, as man, or as both God and man. The mission.

Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary on Mt. 16:19 & “‘The Key’s”

Ver. 19. And I will give to thee the keys, &c. This is another metaphor, expressing the supreme power and prerogative of the prince of the apostles. The keys of a city, or of its gates, are presented or given to the person that hath the chief power. We also own a power of the keys, given to the other apostles, but with a subordination to St. Peter and to his successor, as head of the Catholic Church. --- And whatsoever thou shalt bind, &c. All the apostles, and their successors, partake also of this power of binding and loosing, but with a due subordination to one head invested with the supreme power. --- Loose on earth. The loosing the bands of temporal punishments due to sins, is called an indulgence: the power of which is here granted. (Challoner) --- Although Peter and his successors are mortal, they are nevertheless endowed with heavenly power, says St. Chrysostom, nor is the sentence of life and death passed by Peter to be attempted to be reversed, but what he declares is to be considered a divine answer from heaven, and what he decrees, a decree of God himself. He that heareth you, heareth me, &c. The power of binding is exercised, 1st. by refusing to absolve; 2nd. by enjoining penance for sins forgiven; 3nd. by excommunication, suspension or interdict; 4th. by making rules and laws for the government of the Church; 5th. by determining what is of faith by the judgments and definitions of the Church. (Tirinus) --- The terms binding and loosing, are equivalent to opening and shutting, because formerly the Jews opened the fastenings of their doors by untying it, and they shut or secured their doors by tying or binding it. END QUOTES

"Cephas" is the Greek transliteration of Peter's Aramaic name "Rock" = Kepha, or perhaps in Galilean Aramaic "Qepha". Only John among the Gospels gives this form of Peter's name but it is also the preferred name that St. Paul uses when he writes about Peter.” End Quote

END OF INSTALLMET #1 ON INDULGENCES

In, With and Through Jesus Christ,

Patrick

[Billiards Ball]

Peter is "little pebble". Jesus is the rock, clearly THE rock upon which the church is built.

Unfortunately, a close reading of Catholic doctrine shows a sort of indulgence is still available, and many pay to have masses said for the dead. It's too late when one has passed to trust Christ for salvation! Don't put it off but trust Jesus today, calling on Him to wash away your sin.

[Mike Mclees]

I don't want to jump into the ring here for it far to much to keep up with in discussion.   Still I noticed you used John 20: 19-23 to justify sacrificial sin offerings. This misuse of scripture. Verse 23 is not about personal sacrifices to appears the church for sin.  Jesus forgave freely for he made himself the sacrifice for our sins. To remit ones sins is a free gift.  The debt has bee paid.  Psalm 51: 16, 17

David said for thou desirest not sacrifice:else I would give it. Thou delightest not in burnt offering  

The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit and a contrite heart thou shalt not despise 

[Fidei Defensor]

I actually beheld a 21 Century Indulgence. At a bookstore they had a St. Benedict Crucifix and a paper came with it which said “an indulgence from his holiness Pope Francis I.” ???☠️

[Mike Mclees]

On ‎5‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 7:55 PM, Patrick Miron said:

. 

My New Friend, with your broad, but partial , and often incorrect knowledge of Catholicism, I’m going to venture a guess you’re a former “catholic.” A disgruntled one for some personal reason

Definition: A person after confessing his sins to a priest, in order to be free from the punishment still due for his sins, requires the church to pray for his rehabilitation. 

The topic of Indulgences is a profound and very complex issue which cannot be explained nor understood in a simplistic manner; hence this will be yet another lengthy POST Reply.

So I will make MY REPLY in Daily-installments:

START OF INSTALLMET #1 ON INDULGENCES

Hmmmm, NOT QUITE. We confess our sins to a priest [1] Because it is a carry- over practice of the OT. {Exo. 26:1; Lev. 5:16-18} and [2] Because it is directly, & precisely commanded by Jesus to do so. {John 20: 19-23}  [3] Sacramental Confession has only a Initial role on indulgences. [4] For the forgiveness of sin GODS WAY {not a post Reformation 16^th Century-human invention  [5] for the KNOWN {not just hoped for;  the actual-KNOWN forgiveness of sin; even Mortal sins {1 John5:16-17} and the GRACE that flows through this Sacrament to help us not sin again.

Questioning Indulgences indicates a lack of necessary understanding of the Power and Authority of ALL THE KEYS TO HEAVEN, which needs a fuller explanation before getting into the depths of Indulgences.

So I will make MY REPLY in installments:

I Catholic                           

Key’s “to The Kingdom”

By Patrick Miron

The Prophet Isiah, more than 500 years before the BIRTH of Christ, foretold this about Christ and His future POPES:

Isaiah 22:21-23 [21] And I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda. [22] And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open. {See Mt 16:18-19} 23] And I will fasten him as a peg in a sure place, and he shall be for a throne of glory to the house of his father.”

Key’s to the Kingdom Explained

This topic is perhaps the most debated single topic in the entire New Testament, and for “good cause”. If we Catholics are able to prove what the Bible say’s as actually being Divine Will [and we can], then all other faiths would seem to have no, or at least extremely shaky grounds on with to found and to prove their faiths. This really is a battle of “Right and Wrong.” And sadly it simply is not explained and told often enough to stem the tide of the “flood gates” of apostates leaving the Catholic Church, for other faiths, often seen to be “as good,” and better suited to their own wants and beliefs.

The debate centers on the biblical term for “rock” as found in St. Matthews Chapter 16: verses 15-20, which we will cover in detail. But for now I would like to set our foundation by explaining two other words found in that same teaching; and one additional fact.

While it is true that much of the New Testament was written in the Greek Language; the language of the intellectuals; Jesus Himself, the sublime intellectual, spoke a far more common language; the language of the poor, the marginalized, and the under-educated; in other words; the masses. That language Jesus spoke being Aramaic. And this fact will provide a significant evidence in support of our case. 

Mt. 16: 19 “And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven”

I would like to begin the defense of our Catholic Bible teaching by first addressing Verse 19 and the terms Jesus unerringly choose to use.  A foundation ought to start at the bottom. The terms I would like to discuss are the terms “to Bind” and “to Loose.” And to objectively define these two terms, we will reference Strong’s Concordance of the Greek and Hebrew Lexicon, which is an independent, non-Catholic site.

 

Strong’s Lexicon “LOOSE” in Hebrew:

7368 rachaq raw-khak' a primitive root; to widen (in any direction), i.e. (intransitively) recede or (transitively) remove (literally or figuratively, of place or relation):--(a-, be, cast, drive, get, go, keep (self), put, remove, be too, (wander), withdraw) far (away, off), loose, X refrain, very, (be) a good way (off).

8271 shre' sher-ay' (Aramaic) a root corresponding to that of 8293; to free, separate; figuratively, to unravel, commence; by implication (of unloading beasts) to reside:--begin, dissolve, dwell, loose.

Strongs Lexicon “LOOSE” in Greek:

142. airo ah'-ee-ro a primary root; to lift up; by implication, to take up or away; figuratively, to raise (the voice), keep in suspense (the mind), specially, to sail away (i.e. weigh anchor); by Hebraism (compare 5375) to expiate sin:--away with, bear (up), carry, lift up, loose, make to doubt, put away, remove, take (away, up)

630. apoluo ap-ol-oo'-o from 575 and 3089; to free fully, i.e. (literally) relieve, release, dismiss (reflexively, depart), or (figuratively) let die, pardon or (specially) divorce:--(let) depart, dismiss, divorce, forgive, let go, loose, put (se

2673. katargeo kat-arg-eh'-o from 2596 and 691; to be (render) entirely idle (useless), literally or figuratively:--abolish, cease, cumber, deliver, destroy, do away, become (make) of no (none, without) effect, fail, loose, bring (come) to nought, put away (down), vanish away, make void.

By way of explanation:

At the time and place these very precisely chosen words were spoken by Jesus; who being God cannot error. Cannot, but have been keenly aware of what He was saying, and exactly why He was saying it. 

What Jesus intentionally did here was exactly what He set out to do. This was a transfer of power. [If in doubt please read Mt. 10:1-8] But one that was so well known, and commonly recognized at that precise time and place, that its conveyance was actually covered and protected in Jewish Laws of the time. Which might explain why no questions were asked, or no later debates or disputes ensued on Peter’s Leadership issue.

I marvel at the Wisdom of God, although I ought not to. The sheer brilliance of the WORDS God choose, were not merely picturesque; they were shockingly clear and precise, as well as the most accurately descriptive terms that the Apostles [and any other Jews who might have overheard] would hear and then correctly apply to the message being taught by Christ.  What Jesus was saying; what Jesus was doing here was choosing Peter to be His Visar, His Prime Minister. …  For our use these two terms should be considered synonymous in there meaning. … And leaving nothing to “chance” [a term that simply cannot coexist with God], the location Christ choose to make this appointment; and to be sure,  an appointment is exactly what it was, also has great significance to all of us. And in fact may well be the under-girding reason this entire teaching is so often debated.  The location Christ choose was carefully selected to add weight, meaning and emphasis to the message and the very motive Christ had for doing what He was so unerringly intent on accomplishing.

The location of Caesarea Philippi, was located on the coast and was a very large and active shipping magnet location. As a result of its ideal location, it was common that pagan’s from around the globe, at some time, made port there.  And flowing from that reality, this location was home to the area’s largest pagan shrine. This location was purposefully selected by Jesus to make the point that what He was doing, was preparing to battle Satan on “his home grounds.” [Plural]. This New Church and the Faith of that Church [both singular], was and is meant to be the alternative God gives men; so well expressed in the Old Testament Book of  Ecclesiasticus 15:18 “ Before man is life and death, good and evil, that which he shall choose, shall be given to him.”

 Many large cities at that time, were actually walled in cites; with gates that were closed and locked at night, and then reopened again in the morning for trade and business. Jerusalem was, and in fact remains such a city to the present day. The holder of these key’s was a “Visar” or “Prime Minister”; chosen by the King of that city, and answerable to and only to that King. This carrier of the “keys” was empowered to run that cities day to day business in the name of the king, and granted the Power and Authority of that king, and everyone knew it. And this dear friends is exactly, precisely, and fully what God intended, in choosing Peter to hold this critical position, but also in an absolute sense, an essential role from God’s perspective; knowing full well that He was soon to die; and that in order for His One God, One Faith in and through His newly established One Church to flourish in His absence, that there would have to be a top-down organization, and just as critically, someone to man it.

And this reality ought not to be the surprise that certain others would like to pretend it to be. God throughout the entirety of the bible, has with utter consistency, chosen just one man, to be His spokesman, His teacher; to guide, to chide, to teach and to preach on His behalf. Men like Abram [later Abraham who like Peter had his name changed by God]; Moses, Jacob, the Judges and Kings like David, and Solomon; and then the Prophets like Isaiah, and Jeremiah, ending with John the Baptist; the last Prophet, and the one man chosen to introduce Jesus as the long awaited messiah. Just as the kings of the various walled in cities shared their Power and Authority by choosing one man to be given, and accept the authority of His Keys, answerable only to the king [Jesus is “Christ the King”]. So to Christ Choose Peter; the one chosen man, following what had already been a long established practice and tradition, one man, unqualified for the task, in order that there would be no doubt as to whom to Credit for its success; God! Not Peter, and not Peter’s necessary successors, but God!  Is there any room at all to doubt what I just shared? No.

John 17:18-19 “As thou has sent me [Jesus praying in His human nature, to God the Father on behalf of His Apostles, whom He will shortly leave, but not abandon.] I [God] also send them into the world. And for THEM, do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.”

No other,… no other Church or Faith can make the claim that Jesus Christ makes Himself the Personal warranty for all of their Faith-beliefs and Moral teachings, except His Catholic Church, and be able to sustain it.

God; that is, Jesus Christ offers Himself to the Father both as evidence of Blessed Lords intent and desire to establish One God, With One Faith and in and through one, and just one Church; His Catholic Church, that alone will be guided, inspired and protected to share the Fullness of His Truths. … 

Now let’s look at the entirety of the passage in question; dissect it, and see if there is any, even the slightest bit of wiggle room for other man made competing faiths and churches in it that might be used as a justification for their competing faith beliefs. I mean no lack of charity here; but he entire basis for the Catholic Church; what we teach, preach and practice is at stake, so there is charity in the truth that is shared here. When Pope Benedict the XVI was elected; from the balcony of Saint Peters; he shared this irrefutable wisdom. … ”There cannot be your truth and my truth or there would be no truth.” AMEN!

           

God has blessed me with a most wonderful friend. She is a convert from the Angelina Faith; has expertise in church history, worked for several years as a missionary, and is an attorney. From time to time I share without identifying the person of whom I’m speaking about with her, just to make sure I’m being clear and am on the right track. The brief comments below, follow that kind of discussion on this very topic that I was having with a possible convert. I have her permission to share it.

Comments added by Marianne

{A convert; a missionary; a church historian and an attorney and dear friend}

“That was a great reply! Now, she'll be armed against protestant claims that "petra" and "petros" are different words. They were in Attic Greek, centuries before Christ, but in Koine Greek, they were the same word with feminine/masculine endings. And, of course, protestant skeptics overlook the evidence of Peter's title in Aramaic altogether!

A small interesting point about the transfiguration and Simon's appointment as first pope. It happened at the headwaters of the Jordan, at the site of an older temple of the pagan Hellenistic god Pan and the later white marble temple Herod built to Caesar Augustus. There, a site that had been dedicated to false gods - imaginary and human - is supplanted by the creation of the one, holy, apostolic, AND visible Church. Here, where the headwaters of the Jordan arise in a great fountain, on the mountain of Caesaria Phillipi, Jesus establishes the new order. I find that a thrilling image. Where there had been superstition, fear, and slavery, Jesus creates Mother Church, to guide and preserve us. And he gives us Peter, the Rock, our Holy Father, to stand upon that high place to inspire and lead us. She is a visible Church, created to stand high upon a mountaintop, led by a human. This is another rebuttal of protestant theology that the Church is an invisible entity. The Church is a visible, human institution not some airy-fairy "spiritual" idea. One can go to that mountain today and stand where Peter stood and watch the waters of baptism well up out of the ground. Jesus gave us physical touchstones to confirm our faith: water, bread, wine, a Pope. “End of Quote

Mt.16:15-19 “He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on [you] this rock I will build my church, [singular] and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. [19] I will give you[all implied here] 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." There is exclusivity and directness is these words.

With a right understanding; there exist no room for doubt; no room for competing faith beliefs and churches. Catholics would be well advised to turn the table on the doubters, on the unbeliever’s and ask them to prove their right to compete with what God Ordained. Both the bible and history prove our claims as being the one true Church established by Christ.

Isaiah 22:22-24 Re: PETER (and Jesus) “And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father's house. And they will hang on him the whole weight of his father's house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons” [One MIGHT ask; where is the prophesy of the post Reformation churches?]

Mt. 28: 19-20 “Go therefore YOU and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded YOU; and lo, I am with YOU always, to the close of the age."

John 10: 1-2 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door [ My one true  Church]  but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber; but he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.

Eph. 2:19 “So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [singular] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple [singular] in the Lord;  in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”

John 17: 18-19 “As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth”

“As My Father has sent “Me,” {Jesus both God and man}, even so I [God] send you.”

Haydock’s Catholic Commentary [widely recognized throughout the years as perhaps the best… Written in the late 1800’s.]

Ver. 21. As the Father hath sent me. The word mission, when applied to our Saviour Christ, sometimes signifies his eternal procession from the Father, and sometimes his mission, as he was sent into the world to become man, and the Redeemer of mankind: the first mission agrees with him, as the eternal Son of God; the second, as man, or as both God and man. The mission.

Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary on Mt. 16:19 & “‘The Key’s”

Ver. 19. And I will give to thee the keys, &c. This is another metaphor, expressing the supreme power and prerogative of the prince of the apostles. The keys of a city, or of its gates, are presented or given to the person that hath the chief power. We also own a power of the keys, given to the other apostles, but with a subordination to St. Peter and to his successor, as head of the Catholic Church. --- And whatsoever thou shalt bind, &c. All the apostles, and their successors, partake also of this power of binding and loosing, but with a due subordination to one head invested with the supreme power. --- Loose on earth. The loosing the bands of temporal punishments due to sins, is called an indulgence: the power of which is here granted. (Challoner) --- Although Peter and his successors are mortal, they are nevertheless endowed with heavenly power, says St. Chrysostom, nor is the sentence of life and death passed by Peter to be attempted to be reversed, but what he declares is to be considered a divine answer from heaven, and what he decrees, a decree of God himself. He that heareth you, heareth me, &c. The power of binding is exercised, 1st. by refusing to absolve; 2nd. by enjoining penance for sins forgiven; 3nd. by excommunication, suspension or interdict; 4th. by making rules and laws for the government of the Church; 5th. by determining what is of faith by the judgments and definitions of the Church. (Tirinus) --- The terms binding and loosing, are equivalent to opening and shutting, because formerly the Jews opened the fastenings of their doors by untying it, and they shut or secured their doors by tying or binding it. END QUOTES

"Cephas" is the Greek transliteration of Peter's Aramaic name "Rock" = Kepha, or perhaps in Galilean Aramaic "Qepha". Only John among the Gospels gives this form of Peter's name but it is also the preferred name that St. Paul uses when he writes about Peter.” End Quote

END OF INSTALLMET #1 ON INDULGENCES

In, With and Through Jesus Christ,

Patrick

Not being in the 15th century and before, what date and time was it written and established in writing  Can you say for a fact  that the church 'your church" never, ever took monetary  indulgences with the popes blessing 

Edited September 30, 2018 by Mike Mclees

[Patrick Miron]

1 hour ago, Mike Mclees said:

Not being in the 15th century and before, what date and time was it written and established in writing  Can you say for a fact  that the church 'your church" never, ever took monetary  indulgences with the popes blessing 

 

1 hour ago, Mike Mclees said:

Not being in the 15th century and before, what date and time was it written and established in writing  Can you say for a fact  that the church 'your church" never, ever took monetary  indulgences with the popes blessing 

No, of course not! That too is and  WAS s sad part of our 2,000 year history.

Its been abrogated LONG AGO.... and your point is?

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[Mike Mclees]

4 hours ago, Patrick Miron said:

 

No, of course not! That too is and  WAS s sad part of our 2,000 year history.

Its been abrogated LONG AGO.... and your point is?

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

The point is the charge was made that the church was, the church,( your church) was doing this practice. The whole idea that one had to do anything to satisfy the church for any wrong doing as act of penance was not biblical. David in Psalm 53 said it well. Lord you do not want sacrifice lest I would give it, but a broken and contrite heart thou will not despise. 

The problem is that your church took apon itself the authority to do at will whatever it wanted assuming they had power to do so. That is the point.

Edited September 30, 2018 by Mike Mclees

[Patrick Miron]

3 hours ago, Mike Mclees said:

7 hours ago, Patrick Miron said:

 

The point is the charge was made that the church was, the church,( your church) was doing this practice. The whole idea that one had to do anything to satisfy the church for any wrong doing as act of penance was not biblical. David in Psalm 53 said it well. Lord you do not want sacrifice lest I would give it, but a broken and contrite heart thou will not despise. 

The problem is that your church took apon itself the authority to do at will whatever it wanted assuming they had power to do so. That is the point.

No, incorrect as written.

REMOVE and change "had to" and replace it could OPTION t do and you'd be closer to the truth.

Indulgences themselves are OPTIONS; not MANDATES

Further your understanding of the Absolute need {now or in Purgatory} stems from a dual misunderstanding:

The full- nature of Sin

The Divine Nature as to how it MUST relate to sin, which I'm to tired to night to get into {its profound and lengthy},  but if you'd like to discuss it let me know.

Further, the bible itself teaches that not everything can be, ought to be, and was even desired to be in the bible {also a separate topic we can discuss}

God Bless you NEW friend,

Patrick

 

 

[Mike Mclees]

11 hours ago, Patrick Miron said:

No, incorrect as written.

REMOVE and change "had to" and replace it could OPTION t do and you'd be closer to the truth.

Indulgences themselves are OPTIONS; not MANDATES

Further your understanding of the Absolute need {now or in Purgatory} stems from a dual misunderstanding:

The full- nature of Sin

The Divine Nature as to how it MUST relate to sin, which I'm to tired to night to get into {its profound and lengthy},  but if you'd like to discuss it let me know.

Further, the bible itself teaches that not everything can be, ought to be, and was even desired to be in the bible {also a separate topic we can discuss}

God Bless you NEW friend,

Patrick

 

 

You talk in riddles. restate your comment more plainly.