Can Anyone Who Has Faith Be Considered A Disciple With The "Keys" To The Kingdom Of God?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Can the ordinary believer consider himself a "disciple of Jesus" and also consider himself in line of the "keys" to the Kingdom of God just like the first Apostles (laying of hands, etc.)?

(If my question is complicated and quirky, sorry.)

..................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 24, 2004

Answers

Some people think they can be their pope or successors of the first Apostles. They don't view St. Peter as the first pope and believe that the "keys" were pass on to all believers. This is a Protestant view, obviously. But, what is the real story about the succession of the "keys" to the Kingdom of Heaven?

...........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 24, 2004.


My first question is whether this view comes from Scripture or is extrapolated from Scripture. Is there an explicit verse that says the keys of the kingdom have been passed on to all believers? I am probably wrong in this, but I thought Jesus was talking to Peter and at most, the rest of the apostles when he talked about the keys and binding and loosing.

If so, then the idea that ALL believers have this power comes from reading into what Jesus says. It seems to me that if every believer has the keys and the power to bind and loose, then these "powers" become subjective based on the beliefs of each individual believer. That doesn't seem right to me.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 25, 2004.


Exactly right. The Protestant position is that each individual has the personal power of binding and loosing. They don't express it that way of course, but each individual supposedly can discern what is the truth by personal interpretation of Scripture, so each individual can therefore determine what doctrine will be accepted as binding on himself and what will not. That of course is far from what Scripture tells us. The power of binding and loosing was first given individually to Peter (Matt 16:19), and then, once that central authority was in place, to the apostles collectively (Matt 18:18). This is what the Church teaches today - that the bishops of the Church, teaching in union with the Vicar of Christ, teach infallibly. The Keys to the Kingdom however, the symbol of ultimate authority and headship, could not be given to more than one man. This authority was given to Peter alone (Matt 16:19), and it is only in submission to this authority which allows the rest of the Church to teach with authority.

16:19 18:18

My first question is whether this view comes from Scripture or is extrapolated from Scripture. Is there an explicit verse that says the keys of the kingdom have been passed on to all believers? I am probably wrong in this, but I thought Jesus was talking to Peter and at most, the rest of the apostles when he talked about the keys and binding and loosing. If so, then the idea that ALL believers have this power comes from reading into what Jesus says. It seems to me that if every believer has the keys and the power to bind and loose, then these "powers" become subjective based on the beliefs of each individual believer. That doesn't seem right to me.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 25, 2004.


Thanks, Andy and Paul.

The hard battle is in convincing others.

.......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 25, 2004.


There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. The only true believers are Catholics. Otherwise why would Our Lord start a Church. Only the clergy have the power to forgive sins. Nowhere else is that available.

Even Protestants are not really Christian. They claim to follow Jesus, but they deny His sacraments. That does not qualify as followers.

-- Meyer (Tradsky@aol.com), September 25, 2004.



Meyer, there is salvation outside the Catholic Church.. The only reason Jesus started a church because his people did not believe him.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 25, 2004.


Catholics are the only Christians who have the fullness of Christian truth available to them. However, much of what Protestants believe is true, since the source of many of their beliefs is the Catholic Church. And, many Catholics do not accept the fullness of truth their Church offers them. Therefore "true believers" is not as simple to define as you suggest.

Yes, claiming to follow Jesus while denying the sacraments He instituted is an imperfect and deficient way of following Him. On the other hand, attending Mass and receiving the sacraments regularly while claiming to be "pro-choice" is also a deficient way of following Him. Claiming to be Catholic while accepting premarital sexual relationships or homosexual relationships is a deficient way of following Him. Claiming to be Catholic while practicing artificial contraception in marriage is a deficient way of following Him. Simply being a member of the Catholic Church doesn't make a person a "true believer". It only gives one the opportunity to be a true believer. Which is worse - to have the fullness of truth available to you, but to pick and choose what you will believe and reject what you don't care for? Or simply to be brought up without the fullness of truth available, yet firmly accepting every truth you have the opportunity to know?

There is no salvation except through the true Church. But many who are not members of the true Church will still be saved by acceptance of the truth they have received from it. And many who are members of the true Church will be lost because of their rejection of the truth that is available to them.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 25, 2004.


Wise words, PaulM.

Since in the USA the abortion, infidelity, divorce rates of Catholics are about the same as that of the rest of the population then more than 50% will never make it.

To me, personally, denying the eucharist to catholics who divorced because what I consider legitimate reasons: infidelity, brutality, viololence of any kind, ....just makes them stay away.

You know that if people stay too long from believers, they will fall down further down the road.

The Church should do something about them.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 25, 2004.


Of course Catholics do not have an automatic ticket to Heaven, just because they are Catholics. Even most Catholics will not be saved.

However it is a thrice defined dogma of the Church, that no non catholics will be saved. Cantate Domino is the absolutely most clear. To deny these dogmtic declarations is just plain heresy.

-- Meyer (Tradsky@aol.com), September 25, 2004.


So you consider the current Catechism of the Catholic Church a work of heresy? And yet you consider yourself Catholic?

I repeat - Which is worse - to have the fullness of truth available to you, but to pick and choose what you will believe, and reject what you don't care for? Or simply to be brought up without the fullness of truth available, yet firmly accepting every truth you have the opportunity to know?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 25, 2004.



Elpidio,

The Church does NOT deny the Eucharist to Catholics who are divorced. Since the Church teaches that civil divorce accomplishes NOTHING, how then could "nothing" separate someone from the sacramental life of the Church? The Church does teach that those who are divorced AND REMARRIED should not receive the Eucharist, and for the very same reason - since divorce accomplishes nothing, therefore people who "remarry" after going through such a civil process are living in an objective state of ongoing, unrepented adultery.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 25, 2004.


Paul and Elphido,

The catechism, {any catechism} , does not supercede a dogmatic declaration;

Hee is the 'punch line", of Cantate Domino. How can you read anything into it that is not there?

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

-- Meyer (Tradsky@aol.com), September 25, 2004.


Meyer,

Obviously the Catechism does not "supercede" the doctrine of the Church, because the Catechism IS the doctrine of the Church, compiled in simple form to make it readily available to the faithful. An officially authorized catechism contains not only the essential dogmatic statements which comprise the deposit of faith and which never change, but also the full understanding of the Church regarding such doctrine, incorporating all that has been learned through the centuries of scholarship and divine guidance that have elapsed since the previous catechism was compiled.

A couple of basic questions ...

(1) Does the Magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church interpret and teach its doctrinal truth authoritatively and infallibly?

(2) Does it do so in every age until the end of time?

If you answer "no" to either question, then there is no point in dredging up 15th century doctrinal interpretations, because there is no sound basis for accepting ANY doctrinal statement of the Catholic Church from ANY age.

If you correctly aswer "yes" to both questions, then you must accept that the statements made by Pius XII are equally valid, and cannot conflict with those made by Eugene IV. Pius XII denouced the tendency among some Catholic theologians to reduce the teaching of the Church to "an exclusivist view of salvation", and proclaimed that "this teaching does not mean that anyone who is not a full-fledged Catholic is damned" (Humani Generis) He further stated that "those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church . . . by an unconscious desire and longing have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer" (Mystici Corporis).

Obviously the Apostles didn't have as full an understanding of many doctrinal issues as Pope Eugene had 1400 years later. Obviously Pope Eugene IV didn't have as full an understanding of doctrinal issues as Pope Pius XII did 500 years later. The Holy Spirit never stops revealing to the Church greater depths of understanding of doctrinal truth. Either you accept the teaching of the Church in every age, or you don't accept the teaching of the Church.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 25, 2004.


Thank you for your explaination Paul. I did not intend to debate this, just to clarify it. We can let it go at that.

-- Meyer (Tradsky@aol.com), September 26, 2004.

Meyer,

If the views you expressed were/had-been adopted by the Church, they would send the Church into bigotry and intolerance. There is a problem with a Church of a loving God preaching hate. The usual reflection is to say that others need more of the mercy of God to enter Heaven than would members of the One True Faith.

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), September 26, 2004.



Is that so, Sean?

But it's not preaching hatred to deliver the Holy Gospel uncorrupted. It tells me flalty: You sin, you are damned. Not-- you sin, and because you believe an odd slice or two of the Gospel, you may not be damned.

Christ told us we were His Church. Not because we receive more or less of God's mercy. But only because in His Church we are taught all that He has revealed.

There's no hatred preached in the true faith. Catholics know there is little chance of salvation outside the true faith. Without the Church we may well fail to repent of our sins. Not because God cannot be merciful to one who denies His truth; but because the one in denial may die in sin. There is nothing inherently intolerant or bigoted about insisting on the truth. We all are saved by the truth as Christ has revealed it.

The one place in our world where it is preached unaltered and perfect is in His Church. There is ample proof over 2,000 years; that there is but one apostolic Church of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 26, 2004.


In answer to one of the responses, I offer this information.

Catechisms are not infallible documents. The Roman Catechism may have erred on the fate of unbaptized infants, and it may be that the new catechism, which offers no particular solution but just a generalized hope, is nevertheless closer to the right answer. It might be better to go with the “novel” teaching, which is more vague, and set aside the “traditional” teaching, which, some say, suggests a deficiency in God’s mercy.

-- Tralafast (Constanto@southwest.com), September 27, 2004.


Catechisms are not sources of doctrine. They are compilations of pre-existing doctrine; and that doctrine, in its essence, IS infallible. However, a current interpretation or explanation of a doctrine is not necessarily infallible. Therefore, "no salvation except through the Catholic Church" has always been and always will be infallibly true. But the Church has gradually grown and will continue to grow into fuller understanding of exactly what that phrase means.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 27, 2004.

“Even most Catholics will not be saved.” (Meyer) You have no way of knowing this. The Church’s teaching and Christ’s own words in the gospels warn us against such speculation of how many will be saved.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 27, 2004.

eugene, sorry to be so slow to get back to you.

"But it's not preaching hatred to deliver the Holy Gospel uncorrupted. It tells me flalty: You sin, you are damned. Not-- you sin, and because you believe an odd slice or two of the Gospel, you may not be damned."

Ok, if it is not hatred that is being preached, why the hate speach? And if it is hate speach, then is it the Gospel? Do we have the good news of hating ones neighbor? of being self rightous that our neighbor is automatically wrong and damned?

And sin not false belief, it is going against Gods wishes. And all fall short of that. Yes, we can repent.

"Christ told us we were His Church. Not because we receive more or less of God's mercy. But only because in His Church we are taught all that He has revealed."

Truth and/or overreaching pride? likely both.

"There's no hatred preached in the true faith. Catholics know there is little chance of salvation outside the true faith. Without the Church we may well fail to repent of our sins. Not because God cannot be merciful to one who denies His truth; but because the one in denial may die in sin. There is nothing inherently intolerant or bigoted about insisting on the truth. We all are saved by the truth as Christ has revealed it. "

There is a difference between your statement "because you are different you are likely to go to hell" and the previous statement "because you are different you will go to hell." I like your wording slightly more. And the image of many Christians mutually damning each other is cause of more cynism and more distaste for Chrisitanity. Please do not add to the world's image of Christianity as a mutual hate club. As the song should go? We will know they are Christians by their hate, by their hate...?? I would love to see more respect between all Christians.

"The one place in our world where it is preached unaltered and perfect is in His Church. There is ample proof over 2,000 years; that there is but one apostolic Church of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church. "

This 'proof' is the usual Catholic attitude, (not saying that there are not protestant attitudes just as off -- there are). Lets see -- since an organization called the Catholic Church is still around, (And since we will admit of no change in practice since the third century, nor change in understanding,)therefor it is right, and kept all that should be kept and rejected all that should be rejected. And you will quote the Bible about Jesus saying that the organization founded on Peter will not falter nor be in error. Any Catholic almost must take this attitude. But for the rest of us, there is an element of doubt. The eastern churches let in such a doubt: their input was mostly ignored, until ignored they left. And their traditions are as long as the western church. So why this attitude? Pride, a needed pride to go forth and say that because we are right, therefore we are right. Ignoring circular reasoning, ignoring 2000+ years of sinfull men, and other such.

There are several apostolic Churches of Jesus Christ. Eastern, Episcopal, Coptic for all I know.

You view the Church as a fish does water. It is all around you. Have kindness, respect, and mercy when viewing another Christian through Chruch colored glasses.

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), September 29, 2004.


“Even most Catholics will not be saved.” (Meyer) You have no way of knowing this. The Church’s teaching and Christ’s own words in the gospels warn us against such speculation of how many will be saved.

I did no say it, but our Lord did.

"The gate is narrow and few there are that will find it"

That sounds pretty ominous. Note He says "That will find it". Most are not looking for it to begin with.

The Democrats get more votes from Catholics than they do from Protestants on a percentage basis. Abortion, gay rights, and other things. So what do they care, as long as they can be bought with entitlements.

-- Meyer (Tradsky@aol.com), September 29, 2004.


“we will admit of no change in practice since the third century, nor change in understanding” (Sean)

There have been innumerable changes in practice and in understanding in the Catholic Church since the third century. What has not changed since 30 AD is the faith of the Catholic Church.

“you will quote the Bible about Jesus saying that the organization founded on Peter will not falter nor be in error. Any Catholic almost must take this attitude. But for the rest of us, there is an element of doubt. The eastern churches let in such a doubt: their input was mostly ignored, until ignored they left. And their traditions are as long as the western church.”

Rubbish. Some of the eastern Churches are and always have been in full communion with the one holy catholic church. Others (the Eastern Orthodox churches), differ from the Catholic Church only on the question of the primatial leadership of the Pope above other bishops. They do NOT doubt the truth that the Church will never falter or be in error, and they have never fallen into doctrinal error. The pope has spoken of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches as “the two lungs of the Church”.

“So why this attitude? Pride, a needed pride to go forth and say that because we are right, therefore we are right. Ignoring circular reasoning,” No-one has said that, we have provided you linear reasoning why the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ.

“ ignoring 2000+ years of sinfull men, and other such.” The Church is not a club for perfect men, but a hospital for sinners. Don’t you think it’s a miracle that the church has survived and thrived despite being sometimes led by men who committed grave sins? But the Catholic Church is not “2000+ years” old yet. Only 1,974 years.

“There are several apostolic Churches of Jesus Christ. Eastern, Episcopal, Coptic for all I know.” The Episcopal Church is not apostolic. They are protestants. Some of them in the 19th century, feeling the loss of the Catholic sacraments and other practices their forefathers had rejected, began to simulate those practices. But this did not make them apostolic. The apostolic tradition was lost in the 16th century.

Meyer, thanks for explaining it. Every Catholic who votes Republican does so purely because he is following Catholic teachings, but every Catholic who votes Democrat does so only because they have been “bought with entitlements”!

Read the WHOLE passage (Luke 13:22-30). RSV Bible says “Many will SEEK TO ENTER and will NOT BE ABLE” – they will knock and the Master will refuse to unlock the door, NOT because they can’t find the door. The man asked Jesus, “Sir, will there be only a few saved?” Of course what he was really asking was, "will there be only a few saved BESIDES THE JEWS?” He presumed that he and the other Jews would be saved. The point of the story is that there will be many non-Jews saved “from east and west and from north and south”, and many Jews will not be saved. This was shocking news to Jesus’ hearers.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 29, 2004.


Cathedra: "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

We now know, infallibly, that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Pope. The only people on the face of the planet who are submissive to the Pope are Catholics: all pagans, Jews, heretics and schismatics are automatically excluded. If there were just one single exception to this definition, then we must conclude one of two things: a) the Pope is not infallible, or b) the person in question is not a human creature .

·

-- Meyer (Tradsky@aol.com), October 10, 2004.


Or we might conclude c) that since the 14th century the Holy Spirit has guided the Church into a fuller understanding and appreciation of this doctrinal truth, and a more charitable interpretation thereof, more in keeping with what God has revealed about His all-loving, all-merciful, all-just nature. Note that the Church has also ceased burning of heretics as it did then. Hopefully you consider this an improvement over the rigid, unmerciful doctrinal interpretations of the 14th century?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 10, 2004.

A fuller understanding theoryis a dangerous thing. Look at the United States constitution. A "fuller understanding", gave us abortion and other restrictions.

Where will that fuller understanding thing eventually lead us fifty years from now, when we have even more of a fuller undestanding.

We were not there when heretics were burned, so we do not know why that occurred. Today they talk about the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but that is easy for us to say. We were not there. It was not our loved ones that would have had to invade Japan.

No indeed, we who were not there cannot make judgements on those who were.

-- Meyer (Tradsky@aol.com), October 10, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ