The Roman Catholic Church Infallibility Thread

[GracePeace]

Matthew 5:33-37 is about being truthful and not having to swear in other in order to be believed. It’s NOT about making a sacred oath before God.

We don't need to guess what Jesus was after : Jesus says taking vows is the sin of pride, thus "of the evil one", thus He bans them.

LEARN how to read the Scriptures on their proper CONTEXT . . .

Rather, you should learn not to add to Scripture, violating God's Word, so as to uphold your vain tradition. You had better not lie against God's Word, because you will give an answer for it.

 

[GodsGrace]

IDK if you know, but Luther, though I disagree with him, saw the Reformers as the continuation of that Church, and saw the Catholics as breaking off from the original Church.

It's not that the Catholics broke off from the original church...
it's that they wandered from it...doctrinally.
and it happened early on.
I won't read any early theologian after the 200's.
The very early ones, taught by the Apostles, are worthy to be read.
If they all agree on a particular topic, you could be sure that it's what the Apostles themselves taught.
And,,,what they wrote about is in line with scripture - of course.

I think it's wandering again right now...
but that's a different topic.

 

[GodsGrace]

I disagree : If you read the text, Christ was saying it was the sin of pride to make a vow, thus "of the evil one".

Here's the text:


Matthew 5:31-37
31 "It was said, 'WHOEVER * SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE ';
32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever * marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
33 "Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FALSE VOWS, BUT SHALL FULFILL YOUR VOWS TO THE LORD.'
34 "But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God,
35 or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is THE CITY OF THE GREAT KING.
36 "Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot * make one hair white or black.
37 "But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes ' or 'No, no '; anything beyond these is of evil.


I like to confirm what I believe with those that know much more than I do...
so I DID check out some commentaries when the above was brought up in this thread.

I found this:


BARNES

Thou shalt not forswear thyself - Christ here proceeds to correct another false interpretation of the law. The law respecting oaths is found in Leviticus 19:12, and Deuteronomy 23:23. By those laws people were forbid to perjure themselves, or to forswear, that is, swear falsely.
Perform unto the Lord - Perform literally, really, and religiously what is promised in an oath.

Thine oaths - An oath is a solemn affirmation or declaration, made with an appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed, and imprecating his vengeance, and renouncing his favor if what is affirmed is false. A false oath is called perjury, or, as in this place, forswearing.

It appears, however, from this passage, as well as from the ancient writings of the Jewish rabbins, that while the Jews professedly adhered to the law, they had introduced a number of oaths in common conversation, and oaths which they by no means considered to be binding. For example, they would swear by the temple, by the head, by heaven, by the earth. So long as they kept from swearing by the name Yahweh, and so long as they observed the oaths publicly taken, they seemed to consider all others as allowable, and allowedly broken. This is the abuse which Christ wished to correct. "It was the practice of swearing in common conversation, and especially swearing by created things." To do this, he said that they were mistaken in their views of the sacredness of such oaths. They were very closely connected with God; and to trifle with them was a species of trifling with God. Heaven is his throne; the earth his footstool; Jerusalem his special abode; the head was made by him, and was so much under his control that we could not make one hair white or black. To swear by these things, therefore, was to treat irreverently objects created by God, and could not be without guilt. It is remarkable that the sin here condemned by the Saviour prevails still in Palestine in the same form and manner referred to here. Dr. Thomson (The Land and the Book, vol. ii. p. 284) says, "The people now use the very same sort of oaths that are mentioned and condemned by our Lord. They swear by the head, by their life, by heaven, and by the temple, or what is in its place, the church. The forms of cursing and swearing, however, are almost infinite, and fall on the pained ear all day long."

Our Saviour here evidently had no reference to judicial oaths, or oaths taken in a court of justice. It was merely the foolish and wicked habit of swearing in private conversation; of swearing on every occasion and by everything that he condemned. This he does condemn in a most unqualified manner. He himself, however, did not refuse to take an oath in a court of law, Matthew 26:63-64. So Paul often called God to witness his sincerity, which is all that is meant by an oath. See Romans 1:9; Romans 9:1; Galatians 1:20; Hebrews 6:16. Oaths were, moreover, prescribed in the law of Moses, and Christ did not come to repeal those laws. See Exodus 22:11; Leviticus 5:1; Numbers 5:19; Deuteronomy 29:12, Deuteronomy 29:1


JAMIESON

33. Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself—These are not the precise words of Ex 20:7; but they express all that it was currently understood to condemn, namely, false swearing (Le 19:12, &c.). This is plain from what follows.
But I say unto you, Swear not at all—That this was meant to condemn swearing of every kind and on every occasion—as the Society of Friends and some other ultra-moralists allege—is not for a moment to be thought. For even Jehovah is said once and again to have sworn by Himself; and our Lord certainly answered upon oath to a question put to Him by the high priest; and the apostle several times, and in the most solemn language, takes God to witness that he spoke and wrote the truth; and it is inconceivable that our Lord should here have quoted the precept about not forswearing ourselves, but performing to the Lord our oaths, only to give a precept of His own directly in the teeth of it. Evidently, it is swearing in common intercourse and on frivolous occasions that is here meant. Frivolous oaths were indeed severely condemned in the teaching of the times. But so narrow was the circle of them that a man might swear, says Lightfoot, a hundred thousand times and yet not be guilty of vain swearing. Hardly anything was regarded as an oath if only the name of God were not in it; just as among ourselves, as Trench well remarks, a certain lingering reverence for the name of God leads to cutting off portions of His name, or uttering sounds nearly resembling it, or substituting the name of some heathen deity, in profane exclamations or asseverations. Against all this our Lord now speaks decisively; teaching His audience that every oath carries an appeal to God, whether named or not.

neither by heaven; for it is God's throne—(quoting Isa 66:1);


It SEEMS to me that my original comment was correct.
If you could find something that states otherwise, I'd be interested.
I'm always happy to learn.

 

[nedsk]

The catholics aren't Christians and neither are the reformers.
If they don't repent and start walking with the Lord they all gonna go to hell.

Both groups departed from what the Lord and His Apostles taught long time ago.

Both groups are really slow too because all they have to do is go by the Bible which is where TRUTH can be found.

Do you eat the flesh of Jesus like that says?

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Do you eat the flesh of Jesus like that says?

I'm not a cannibal or a vampire so I don't literally eat the flesh of Jesus or drink the literal Blood of Jesus

The catholics aren't really cannibals or a vampires either but they think they are.

The bread and juice in communion is REPRESENTATIVE OF the Body and Blood of Jesus

It's very obviously NOT the literal Blood and Flesh of Jesus as the catholics claim.

 

[nedsk]

I'm not a cannibal or a vampire so I don't literally eat the flesh of Jesus or drink the literal Blood of Jesus

The catholics aren't really cannibals or a vampires either but they think they are.

So when Jesus says eat my flesh and drink my blood he doesn't mean it. Ok got it. Thanks but I'll listen to Jesus and not some rando on the Internet