A certain self-styled Protestant whom I’ll call “Deleter” thinks it’s OK to make false claims against the Catholic Church and Catholicism while at the same time insists upon no rebuttal from me by deleting my comments.
The way I see it the Catholic Church provides a service. It provides the same service a synagogue provides. It provides a community, subject matter experts, weddings, coming-of-age ceremonies, and charity. Like Jewish and other Christian organisations it owns hospitals, kindergardens, schools and universities.
And that's it. There is no mysticism here and no authority over anyone who doesn't accept such authority.
The Catholic Church can try to claim authority over other people but if such a claim is successful depends entirely on its reputation. There are Jewish movements like Chabad whom many Jews respect. Similarly people respect the Catholic Church and its expertise.
But in recent years the Catholic Church has lost much of that respect and the claim that G-d wants people to listen to what many perceive to be a bunch of pedophiles and a leader who protects them is not as convincing as some might think it ought to be.
No man knows what G-d really wants. We can only know from scripture.
lula posts:
KFC posts:
Not ridiculous. It's true. True, KFC, because history itself confirms and affirms the unbroken chain of Apostolic Succession from St.Peter, the first Bishop of Rome to Pope Benedict XVI, the 265th Bishop of Rome. Furthermore, all of the bishops in union with the Pope are the duly appointed successors of the Apostles.
In St.Matt. 16:18-19, it was Christ's will to entrust a specific authority to St.Peter alone. The power of the keys designates authority to teach, rule and govern the Kingdom, the House of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd confirmed His mandate to St.Peter of the primacy of His Chruch when He said to him and to him alone, "Feed My sheep." St.John 21:14-17; 10:11.
The Church or the kingdom of God corresponds to the universal Messianic kingdom so often prophecied in the OT. The OT gives us a glimpse as to the significance of the keys....a symbol of supreme power in the kingdom of David.
By giving the keys to St.Peter, Christ willed to make St.Peter His first Vicar, visible head and strong rock foundation of His kingdom. Christ willed to make St.Peter a participator on earth of His own Supreme task which He obtained in His own Chruch by His proper right as Messias.
St.Luke 22:32 offers a parallel to St. Matt. 16:18. The Pope is the Apostle for whom Christ said He would pray that his faith fail him not. Who was that but St.Peter, the first Pope? In both texts, the firmness on which the Church will stand is derived from Christ.
St.John 21:18 records Christ's prophecy of St.Peter's martrydom. St.Peter will suffer in the likeness of the Good Shepherd "who gives his life for his sheep."
There is no doubt whatsoever that CHrist conferred the primacy of His Chruch on St.Peter.
There is also no doubt whatsoever that in order that the mission entrusted to the Apostles St.Matt. 28:16-20 might be continued after their death, the Apostles ordained other men to complete the work they had begun urging them to tend the whole flock in which the Holy SPirit had appointed them to shepherd the Church of GOd. Acts. 20:28.
Read the writings of the early Church Fathers, contemporaries of the Apostles.
St.Irenaeus, "in order that the full gospel might always be preserved in the Church, the Apostles left bishops as their successors." The "Apostolic preaching" was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."
KFC POSTS:
Christ was addressing Peter in this instance (all of them as well as the church in Chap 18) as representative of the 12 telling him that whatever you shall bind (that is forbid) on earth shall be bound in heaven and that whatever you shall loose (that is permist) on earth shall be loosed in heaven. He told Peter and the 12 and by extension ALL OTHER BELIEVERS that they had the authority to declare what is divinely forbidden or permitted on earth.
So, this is your interpretation of what "to bind and loose" means? That Christ gave His authority to bind and loose not only to St.Peter and the other Apostles but also to "ALL OTHER BELIEVERS"??? Well, this sure helps explain why Protestantism fractured into a multiplicity of sects with different doctrines all claiming to be true.
Your interpretation of St.Matt. 18:18 is flat out wrong. Scripture is clear that Christ entrusted this power to bind and loose only St.Peter and the Apostles. No member of the laity has this power. Period.
Exactly. It's called his revealed will for our lives. He has told us all we need to know in this present sinful age and trusting Him involves us acknowledging that there are some things we are not meant to know.
and then to the elders to the church. Like I said believers. It was NOt ONLY to Peter and the Apostles.
You may want to go over and read Acts 15 very carefully. Notice how many times it says "apostles and elders" in tandem? Five times in one chapter to be exact and for good reason. The Apostles were transferring their authority to the elders of the churches. They were included in the decision making at the first council. It wasn't just Apostles. Then go over to Chap 20 and see how Paul called all the elders together and wept over them giving them instruction. They were now taking the leadership positions from the Apostles. This was a transferring of authority and pastoring. These elders had the same authority to "bind and loose" as you're saying ONLY Peter and the Apostles had. Peter does something similar in his epistle calling himself an elder along with those he was instructing. He didn't put himself above them at all.
because you say so? It's not my interpretation. It's obvious by the general reading of the scriptures. The problem is you have the RCC dictating to you what they say according to their agenda choosing some scripture over others to make their case. Happens all the time.
and you totally ignored John 20:19-23 which I mentioned. Here we see Christ breathed on the disciples assembled out of fear in a closed room. This was a definition of the binding and loosing he said earlier in Matthew 18. This most likely included more than just the 10 Apostles (minus Judas and Thomas) but those mentioned in Acts 1:23 as well which would make it about 120.
That's how scripture interprets scripture. You choose instead to take and choose scripture that backs up what the RCC tells you (ignoring others) because you are getting your information from RCC commentaries NOT the scripture itself.
What you describe is but one small part of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was established, authorized, and guaranteed by CHrist to teach us all of His doctrine, give us sanctifying grace through the 7 Sacraments, and to keep us united in charity (love) with God and with each other and make us holy and by these things lead us to Heaven. This is accomplished with the Catholic sacerdotal priesthood. The priesthood the Messias instituted and a new, unbloody Sacrifice in place of the Aaronic priesthood and its Mosaic sacrifices.
I disagree.
I'd say, especially after Moses, we can and do know what Almighty God really wants. It's called His revealed sacerdotal (priestly) religion.
It was through the 12 sons of Jacob, grandson of Abraham, whose name God changed to Israel, that the Isrealites came into being. Judaism, the first organic, priestly sacrificial Divinely revealed religion, stemmed from Moses and Aaron. With the coming of the Messias, Jesus, whom Moses had commanded to be heard (Deut. 18:15-19), came the New Covenant, which Jeremias said would supercede the Jewish convenant. 31:31.
The Judaism of the Old Testament fulfilled it's Divine mission and ceased to function as the one religion of ALmighty God in 70AD, when it ceased to have a priesthood, altar, and sacrifices. Just as the Catholic religion would cease to be if it ceased to have her priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech and the Sacrifice of the Mass. We know that will never happen becasue CHrist promised to be with His Church, the one, holy catholic and Apostolic Church, until the end of the world and the gates of Hell will not prevail against her.
You claim that we can only know what God really wants from Scripture! Which Scripture, Leauki? Does it include the 27 Books in the New Testament?
The idea that the Bible is the only way to know about what God really wants is of 16th century Martin Luther origin. And he was no more right than you are here repeating what he taught.
Anyway, the Holy Bible is the inspired source for the elucidation of faith and Catholics hold that the Church and the BIble to be the true Christian rule of faith. The Church is historically first, the Bible second...it is the Catholic Church that selected the Divinely inspired writings within its covers.
Not exactly. May I remind you of St.John 21:25, "But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."
kfc posts:
KFC,
My statement was very specific and it is correct. You wrote, "and then to the elders ..."
Just to clarify, Christ entrusted His power to bind and loose only to St.Peter and the other Apostles...and they in turn entrusted the power to bind and loose to the "elders".
You say,
The part of your statement that is highlighted is wrong. The power and authority to bind and loose was given only to St.Peter and the Apostles and from them to the "elders" (priests). This is Apostolic Succession.
Not only Acts 15 but the entire Book of Acts is an actual history of the early Catholic Church.
So, OK, I checked out Acts 15 in the KJV and guess what I discovered? The translators of the KJV changed the "priest" into an "elder".
First, we know from the earlier chapters of Acts as well as 1Tim. 4:14; 2Tim.1:6 that the Apostles had ordained other good men into the priesthood by the imposition of hands (now called the Sacrament of Holy Orders). To be called to the priesthood, the separate, sacrificing priesthood of the NT, pledged to sacred service on the altar is of the highest honor. And this priesthood is an ongoing reality, as can be seen by the tense of the verbs in the texts of St.Paul. In Heb.5:1/4, "For every high priest (who is) taken from among men, is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins:....Neither doth any man take the honor to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was."
These "elders" that you speak of were priests who had already been ordained into the priesthood of the New Covenant. Greek was the common language and the early church titles were "bishop" or "Overseer", "presbyter'" (priest) and "deacon". The entry "priest" in dictionaries will give the word "presbyter".
Agree. The Council of Jerusalem took place in 49 or 50AD. It was the first meeting for the hierarchial rulers of the early Chruch consisting of St.Peter, the other Apostles, and priests to decide whether baptized Gentiles are obliged or not to be circumcized and to keep the Old Law. The Council of Jerusalem is seen as the Catholic Church's first General Council, a prototype of the series of Councils that would follow.
Now v. 22 brings in the whole Chruch...It is the hierarchy together with the whole Chruch who designate the people who are to publish the Council's decree, but it is only the Hierarchy, St.Peter, the other apostles, and priests, who formulate and promulgate it throughout the entire Church.
Says who?
Did Jesus at least mention priests or is all of the above made up?
It was through the 12 sons of Jacob, grandson of Abraham, whose name God changed to Israel, that the Isrealites came into being. Judaism, the first organic, priestly sacrificial Divinely revealed religion, stemmed from Moses and Aaron.
Really? What about Melchizedek's religion in Salem and Jethro's religion?
Were they not organic, priestly and reveleaed? I thought they were.
With the coming of the Messias, Jesus, whom Moses had commanded to be heard (Deut. 18:15-19), came the New Covenant, which Jeremias said would supercede the Jewish convenant. 31:31.
Didn't Jeremiah live at the time of the destruction of the first Temple? His prophecy was already fullfilled when the second Temple was built. G-d sent a Messiah and the Jews were returned to the land of Israel. (We are still waiting for Jesus to achieve the same feat. If he is a Messiah too, or worse THE Messiah, that should happen any day now.)
Either way, Jeremiah speaks of a new covenant with Israel, not with the Romans. Only by assuming the title of "Israel" and claiming it for themselves did the Church manage to pretend that it is the partner in that "new" covenant.
The Judaism of the Old Testament fulfilled it's Divine mission and ceased to function as the one religion of ALmighty God in 70AD, when it ceased to have a priesthood, altar, and sacrifices.
It never ceased to function. Even in Jeremiah's time when the first Temple was destroyed, the Jewish religion survived until the second Temple was built. And this time it will survive until the third Temple is built.
But it is quite remarkable that you claim that Judaism ceased to function when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem, the same Romans who later claimed to be the "new Israel" and the new partners in the covenant.
Everything is done by force with you Romans, isn't it? You actually think that you can kill people and steal their covenant with G-d. It's amazing.
Just as the Catholic religion would cease to be if it ceased to have her priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech and the Sacrifice of the Mass. We know that will never happen becasue CHrist promised to be with His Church, the one, holy catholic and Apostolic Church, until the end of the world and the gates of Hell will not prevail against her.
Don't worry. At the current rate Catholicism will eventually run out of priests.
Incidentally, as I told you before, we still have our priesthoood.
You case your entire theology on your ability to ignore facts. That can't be good.
And now suddenly, the order of Melchisedek matters again. Above you claimed that Melchitsedeq wasn't a real priest when you denied the divinity of his religion. And now there is an order of priests based on him?
So was Melchitsedek's religion divine or not?
All your arguments sound as if you have learned them from pre-approved sources. And they contradict each other.
I don't think so. But then you claim that the Avesta is not scripture and you base the Catholic claim to speak for G-d on that claim. So what's the point?
and where pray tell did you get that from? the word elder comes from the Greek Lula. It is the word "presbuteros" which means "an old man, an elder".
In Hebrew 11:2 the "elders" are the forefathers in Israel; so in Matt 15:2, Mark 7:3,5. The feminine of the adjective is used of "elder" women in the churches, 1 Tim 5:2, not in respect of position but in seniority of age; of rank or positions of responsibility,
1. among Gentiles as in Gen 50:7, Num 22:7
2. in the Jewish nation, firstly, those who were the heads or leaders of the tribes and families, as of the seventy who assisted Moses, Num 11:16, Deut 27:1 and those assembled by Solomon; secondly members of the Sanhedrin consisting of the chief priests, "elders" and scribes, learned in Jewish law, e.g. Matt 16:21, 26:47
3. In Christian churches those who being raised up and qualified by the work of the Holy Spirit, were appointed to have the spirital care of and to exercise oversight over the churches. To thse the term "bishops" "episkopoi" or "overseers" is applied Acts 20:17,28, Titus 1:5,7.
The duty of "elders" is described by the Greek verb "episkopeo."
The word priest is "hiereus" "one who offers sacrifice and has the charge of things pertaining thereto" is used of
a. of a priest of the pagan god Zeus, Acts 14:13 (which is really where the Roman RCC gets some of their theology)
b. of Jewish priests, Matt 8:4, 12:4,5, Luke 1:5 where allusion is made to the 24 courses of priests appointed for service in the Temple.
c. of believers (IMAGINE THAT) Rev 1:6, 5:10, 20:6
All believers, from Jews and Gentiles are consituted a kingdom of priests, a "holy priesthood." 1 Peter 2:5 and "royal" v9.
The NT knows NOTHING of a sacerdotal class in contrast to the laity; all believers are commanded to offer the sacrifices mentioned in Rom 12:1, Phil 2:17, 4:18, Heb 13:15,16, 1 Peter 2:5.
another word for Priest is "archiereus" which designates "the high priests" of the Levitical order, frequently called "chief priests" in the NT and I won't get into that.
So no, you're wrong. Priest is not meant in Acts 15, but elder which is the correct translation. Go to the original language Lula, not what the RCC is telling you.
So maybe it was the RCC who substituted priest? Oh yeah! That makes sense.
Hey, KFC, this neatly addresses my question to Lula:
"Did Jesus at least mention priests or is all of the above made up?"
So, did Jesus mention priests and a special role for them or was it Jesus (rather than Judaism) that did away with the priests?
(As I said before, Rabbinic Judaism still has priests.)
the short answer is no. There were to be NO priests (like the OT) under the new covenant. It was Jesus (not Judaism) that did away with the priests. His tearing the veil in two from top to bottom was what did it. Actually Judaism is trying to reinstate the priesthood and they are making rapid progression from what I heard today. I heard they have a Priest with the right credentials in Jerusalem (a butcher) by the name of Cohen who they are looking at to be the next High Priest.
The long answer is:
Jesus is our High Priest. He came in the order of Melchizedek. The definition of High Priest has two meanings only.
1. The only OT priest qualified to carry out the priesthood's full mediatorial function
2. Jesus who serves as the only and eternal high preist of the new covenant.
Th functions of the OT priesthood are outlined in Deut 33. Priests came from the tribe of Levi and the family of Aaron to:
1. Guard God's covenant
2. teaching God's precepts and Law
3. offer incense and sacrifice on God's altar.
The priests spoke to men on God's behalf. In presenting sacrifices and offerings the priests spoke to God for men. Their role was mediatorial.
Hebrews presents Jesus as the High Priest of the new covenant which was ratified by his death. Christ fulfills the mediatorial role given to the OT high priest. He communicates God's will to us for under the new covenant God puts his laws in our minds and writes them on our hearts. Christ guarantees salvation and the forgiveness of all sins to those who come to God thru him because he always lives to intercede for them. Hebrews 7:26-28 sums up the significance of Christ's high Priesthood.
When Christ said "it is finished" on the cross the word is one in the Greek. It's "tetelestai" which means completed. There is NO adding to it. It's a done deal.
It's sort of like adding more letters to the word love. When you do so, it's no longer love. It's the same to those (including the priestly work of the RCC) who try to add more to Christ's finished work on the cross. By doing so, they don't accept what has been already completed for them.
The only priesthood mentioned in the NT is what I wrote above. It's the priesthood of believers. The OT system with its sacrifices and priesthood is set aside in Christ.
Peter says that we are "being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood offering spiritual sacrifices accepted to God thru Jesus." 1 Peter 2:5. Under the New Covenant we are to minister to each other and thus stimulate spiritual growth. We are also to pray for one another, representing each other before God.
There were to be NO priests (like the OT) under the new covenant. It was Jesus (not Judaism) that did away with the priests. His tearing the veil in two from top to bottom was what did it.
Yes. That makes sense.
I said several times that Judaism still has a priesthood.
So Lula wants priests in Christianity and doesn't acknowledge priests in Judaism. In reality there are no priests in Christianity but there are priests in Judaism.
Actually Judaism is trying to reinstate the priesthood and they are making rapid progression from what I heard today. I heard they have a Priest with the right credentials in Jerusalem (a butcher) by the name of Cohen who they are looking at to be the next High Priest.
They are all named Cohen or Catz (Cohen Tzedeq).
I guess there are attempts to revive the position of High Priest. Of course that would require the Temple.
kfc posts 8
By your comments it's clear the notion of "the Church" established, authorized and guaranteed by Christ to teach us the fullness of His doctrines, give us sanctifying grace through the 7 Sacraments, to keep us united in one body, one Spirit, one faith, one baptism, and by these things lead us to eternal happiness in Heaven, is an alien concept.
Your definition of "Church" as made up of all believers in all denominations; all having the power to bind and loose and therefore ever changing and contradictory teachings, without Sacraments, and without a separate, sacrificing priesthood, has little more to offer than "fellowship".
You are true blue to Protestant dogma which divorces Christ from the Chruch He built on St.Peter, separating that which is inseparable. Christ established a unifying central ecclesiasitcal authority when He gave St. Peter the keys to the kingdom.
Sects (in Latin secta, cut, divided) are cut off from the one, true Church, the Body of Christ, established, authorized and guaranteed by Christ. Protestants want the Head, Christ, without the Mystical Body, His Church.
AGAIN, your definition of Church is a teaching of Calvin repeated by Luther etc. You need to stop repeating their false teaching. “The church is made up of believers from all denominations” is unBiblical because it is not Christ’s or the Apostle’s teaching.
Your claim that "the Church" of St.Matt. 16:18-19 is believers in all denominations having the power "to bind and loose" is contrary to the will of CHrist. Your claim is a denial of the oneness Jesus prayed for as He and His Father are one.
What Protestants tell the world is that St.Peter as the visible head of Christ's Church is of no importance, the 7 Sacraments are of no importance, a separate, sacrificing priesthood is of no importance, 7 Books of the OT are of no importance, and the list goes on and on. Protestantism, the existence of hundreds of differing sects is heresy, a sin of disunion, that goes a long way towards explaining the indifference to God's one true religion. What St.Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, said to followers of the first century sects applies with equal force today. "Be not deceived, my brethren, if any one followeth one that maketh schism, he doth not inherit the kingdom of God. If anyone walketh in strange doctrine, he hath no fellowship with the Passion." Ad Philad, n. 3. kfc posts 8....The church is made up of believers from all denominations.
What Protestants tell the world is that St.Peter as the visible head of Christ's Church is of no importance, the 7 Sacraments are of no importance, a separate, sacrificing priesthood is of no importance, 7 Books of the OT are of no importance, and the list goes on and on.
Protestantism, the existence of hundreds of differing sects is heresy, a sin of disunion, that goes a long way towards explaining the indifference to God's one true religion.
What St.Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, said to followers of the first century sects applies with equal force today. "Be not deceived, my brethren, if any one followeth one that maketh schism, he doth not inherit the kingdom of God. If anyone walketh in strange doctrine, he hath no fellowship with the Passion." Ad Philad, n. 3.
This is what St.Ignatius was warning about as "strange doctrine."
kfc posts
This is another one of those false teachings that St.Ignatius was warning about.
lula's understanding of binding and loosening:
So, St.Peter was given the keys of the kingdom singularly and was entrusted with them in conjunction with the powers of binding and loosing. Binding and loosing is equated with the authority to decide what is allowed and forbidden.
The power to bind and loose connotes the authority to absolve sins or to hold them bound, St. John 20:22-23; 9:8. to pronounce doctrinal judgments (for example to include people in the Chruch or to exclude or excommunicate them) and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. As to the word "Whatever you bind...whatever you loose indicates that Jesus gives St.Peter the authority to decide the extent and limitations of his role to bind and loose. The Chruch has traditionally understood the parameters of binding and loosing as applying only to the areas of faith and morals.
kfc's understanding of binding and loosening:
In giving instruction for church discipline to all his people, Jesus said that if a sinning believer refuses to turn from his sin after being counselled privately and even after being rebuked by the entire congration, the church not only is permitted but obligated to treat the unrepentant member "as a Gentile and a tax gatherer" (Matt 18:15-17).
He then said to the church as a whole what He earlier had said to Peter and to the other apostles, "Truly I say to you whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (18:18). In other words, a body of believers has the right to tell an unrepentant brother that he is out of line with God's word and has no right to fellowship with God's people. That's the meaning behind binding and loosing Lula. It's not some divine authority just to the RCC and it's Pope. That's utterly ridiculous. The church is people. It's NOT denomination.
No, KFC....the Divine power to bind and loose was NOT given to the whole body of believers. That is utter nonsense.
Scripture teaches Christ gave the power to forgive or retain sins to St.Peter and the other Apostles, and they in turn to their legitimate successors. Not to all the members of the Church.
If you study Protestantism you'll find that Luther did away with the Christ-instituted Sacrament of Penance (Confession). Luther claimed "faith alone" was enough. And since on that you follow Luther and believe in his doctrine, the true meaning of of binding and loosening as well as forgiving or retaining sins escapes you.
When we sin, we lose sanctifying grace in our soul and move further away from God. In the Church Christ established through the priesthood are the means to restore sanctifying grace beginning with the Sacrament of Baptism and continuing with the Sacrament of Penance where we receive forgiveness of our sins and receive absolution.
The Biblical evidence of the forgiveness of sins is found in St.Matt. 16; 2Cor. 5 and St.John 20.
God forgives sins and God delegated that power to His ambassodors. That's where the Catholic priests come into the picture.
The function of Priests is to offer Sacrifice and reconcile sinners with God. The Apostles were commissioned by Christ to offer sacrifice in commemmoration of Him at the Last Supper which is one form of making reparation for sin.
St.Matt. 16:18.....To St.Peter as head of the Apostolic College, Christ gave His Keys which signified supreme earthly authority to do what CHrist did; that is, have jurisdiction over the flock of which Christ is the Heavenly Good Shepherd. Later, 18:18, to the other Apostles, Christ gave the power to bind and loose that is the power to make decisions, and to inflict censure upon the sinner.
After the Resurrection, the Risen Christ told the Apostles in language unmistakenly clear of their power to forgive sinners...
"As the Father hath sent Me, I also send you." When He had said this, He breathed on them and He said to them, "Receive thee the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." St.John 20.
Note: That as God the Father sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to forgive sinners. The Son in turn, Who is a Divine Person sent His Apostles.
Note: That Christ sent His Apostles and gave only them the power through the Holy Ghosty to forgive sins.
Note: That the power of Heaven and earth that Christ has, He bestowed upon St.Peter and the other Apostles.
Note: That the Apostles were to continue the commission that Christ came to carry out personally during His earthly life.
Note: That it's not reasonable to assume that the power to bind and loose was to end with the last of the Apostles, becasue Our All Merciful Lord came to help sinners during all time which is why He established the Chruch with the objective to reconcile sinners with God. If that weren't so, St.Paul wouldn't have passed judgement on the incestuous Corinthian "If I have pardoned anything for your sakes I have done it in the name of CHrist." 2Cor. 2:10.
The continuance of the power to forgive sin comes through Apostolic Succession, by the laying on of hands in the priesthood.
Of binding and loosing St.Ambrose said, "both are allowed to the Church; neither is allowed to heretics; becasue it is a rite conceded only to priests." De.Poenit, L. I.c, 11.
We see that the power of binding and loosing and to forgive or retain sins continued on after the death of the Apostles. It was not a power of human nature, rather it was a Divine ambassadorial power.
"But all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to Himself, not imputing to them their sins; and He hath placed in us the word of reconciliation. For Christ, therefore, we, (St.Paul, Timothy, Titus and others), are ambassadors, God as it were exhorting by us. For Christ we beseech you, be reconciled to God." 2Cor.5:18-20
Leauki posts: Says who?Did Jesus at least mention priests or is all of the above made up?
Yes, Christ founded and instituted a visible, perpetual priesthood which belongs only to those who are properly chosen and ordained in a special rite, the imposition of hands, which distinguished them from the rest of the faithful.
To the Apostles and their legitimate successors in the priesthood alone was given the power of consecrating the Body and Blood of Christ. "Do this for a commemoration of Me." St.Luke 22:19. Christ's words of the consecration formula made them priests because they gave the power to offer Sacrifice, the clean oblation (in fulfillment of Malachais 1:11), to God.
The first source for the history of the Holy Mass and the Catholic priesthood is the account of the Last Supper. It was becasue Our Lord told us to do what He had done, in memory of HIm, that the early Catholic liturgy exists. All the Catholic liturgies (Mass) obey Christ's command to do "this" namely what He Himself had done.
On her Garage sales blog, KFC said that the early Church met together and only sang hymns, but she is wrong. A definite pattern for the celebration of the early Catholic liturgy (the Holy Eucharist) had developed within decades of Our Lord's death, a pattern which was carried on in the 1st century and the very same one through today.
The earliest and most detailed account of the Eucharist is found in St. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians 11: 23-27 which predates the Gospels around 52-55AD It is the consecration formula used by St.Paul and the formula already in use in the Apostolic liturgy.
"For I have received of the Lord that which I also deliverd unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread, and giving thanks, broke and said, "Take ye and eat: This is My Body which shall be delivered for you: Do this for a commemmoration of Me. In like manner also the chalice, after He had supped, saying: THis chalice is the new testament in My Blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of Me. For as often as you shall eat this Bread and drink this Chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come. Therfore whosoever shall eat this Bread or drink the Chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and BLood of the Lord."
Before St.Barnabas and St.Paul went forth on their missionary journeys, they were ordained as priests. "And as they were ministering to the Lord, and fasting, the HOly Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas for the work whereunto I have taken them. Then they, fasting and praying and imposing their hands upon them, sent them away." Acts 13:2-3.
"And when they had ordained to them priests in every church and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the LOrd, in whom they believed." Acts 14:22.
Through the Sacrament of the Imposition of hands, HOly Orders, as St. Paul confirms in his letter to Timothy: "Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of hands of the priesthood." 1Tim. 4:14.
"I admonish thee that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands. 2Tim. 1:6.
To be called to the priesthood, the separate, sacrificing priesthood of the NT, pledged to sacred service on the altar is of the highest honor. And this priesthood is an ongoing reality, as can be seen by the tense of the verbs in the texts of St.Paul.
In Heb.5:1/4, "For every high priest (who is) taken from among men, is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins:....Neither doth any man take the honor to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was."
Wrong again, KFC. Just becasue Protestantism rejects the Church, her authority and sacerdotal priesthood doesn't mean they don't exist in the NT. What does Hebrews 5:1 and verse 4 say? Aaron was called by God for a special priesthood as are these NT priests are called by God to offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins.
One more point....
Beginning on Pentecost, the early Chruch set about carrying out Christ's commands to teach all nations, baptizing them...Early on we see the Apostles "ministering to the Lord and fasting" Acts. 13:2. But by the time of Pentecost, the Lord had acended into Heaven and walked with them no more, so they cannot be ministering to the Lord in the sense of giving aid or serving Him in some way. What then were they doing? The OT sheds some light on this.
Take unto thee also Aaron thy brother with his sons, from among the children of Israel, that they may minister to me in the priests office...and thou shalt make a holy vesture for Aaron thy brother for glory and for beauty. And thou shalt speak to all the wise of heart, whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom; that they may make Aaron's vestments, in which he being consecrated may minister to me. Exodus 28:1-3.
Whosoever of thy seed throughout their families, hath a blemish, he shall not offer bread to his God. Neither shall he approach to minister to HIm...whosoever of the seed of Aaron the priest hath a blemish, he shall not approach to offer sacrifices to the Lord, nor bread to his God. Lev. 21: 17-18, 21.
In Acts 13:2, When they were "ministering of the Lord" in Antioch, they were offering the worship of the Church which would later be called the Holy Mass by the priesthood of the New Testament both of them prefigured in these OT texts.
Again, Acts is the actual history of the CC and that there might be priests to offer the Holy Sacrifice, teach Christ's truths to all nations, until the end of the world, and administer the 7 Sacraments, the Apostles conferred upon other men the Sacrament of Holy Orders and made them priests.
St.Paul to the Corinthians said, "Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ; and the dispensers of the mysteries of God. Here now it is required among the dispensers, that a man be found faithful." 1Cor. 4:1-2.
Who are the "Dispensers" of the mysteries of God? ANd what are the "mysteries of God" Well, in Catholicism, the dispensers are the priests and "the mysteries of God" are the 7 Sacraments, Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Eucharist, Penance, Anonting of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony. Only validly ordained priests can be dispensers of the mysteries of God.
"the mysteries of God" are the Sacraments and the Sacraments are an outward sign of inward grace ordained by Christ, by which sanctifying (supernatural) grace is given to our souls.
Clearly Christ established a separate priesthood with exclusive powers and it is through the hierarchial priesthood we receive the 7 Sacraments. Clearly, There are two types of priesthood in the New Testament. Your repudiation of a separate priesthood comes from the same source as the rest of your unBiblical denials, substitutions and redefinitions of things Catholic.
Well, luckily for us everything important Jesus said and did was written down.
Can you point me to the sentences in question?
I don't understand Greek but I can look at English and German translations.
I also have a Hebrew version of the Christian Bible. I can check how they translated it.
Yes, and according to Marv (going to Jerusalem in two weeks again) he said they have everything ready and the whole thing could go up in a matter of months. He has quite a ministry over there. Right now our group has been asked to help a very poor group of Ethiopian Jews over there who have virtually nothing. I'm hoping I can go in the fall. He's going to extend the trip to Ephesus and the Isle of Patmos among other places.
there are NO 7 sacraments in scripture. That's your religion talking Lula. There are only 2. Baptism and the Lord's Supper. The rest is all your religion.
Show me in scripture where Christ was reinstating the priesthood. Go ahead. Show me. I think the veil tearing in two from top to bottom was a very big hint that it was done away with. There was no need for a mediator anymore between man and God. Christ fulfilled that role as our High Priest. We are to go thru Him now. Not a priest. Remember Lula..the book of Hebrews was written to the Hebrews who were still under the Old Covenant. It's the only NT book without an author for good reason. The unconverted Jews were NOT listening to Paul. By NOT having his name at the beginning of the letter (which was custom) they were more apt to read the contents. Notice how the other letters start out with the author's name but this one.
yep and that was the point. Everything God wished for us to know we have whether it be in nature or the written word. The Scriptures are his written revelation to mankind. All the rest is man centered.
This is your problme Lula. It's NOT PRIESTS; It's ELDERS. The word in the Greek is ELDERS. IT is NOT Priest. Your RCC has twisted scripture to make it say what they want it to say and you're going by that instead of the original translation. They are the ones who did the substituting. You ARE following MAN; not God when you do such things.
I challenge you to go to the original Greek and see for yourself. See the problem is NOT evidence. The problem is response.
I said that? Really? I said they ONLY sang hymns?
You failed to show where Christ instituted the priesthood. Saying to have communion in memory of him does NOT in any way institute a priesthood. Believers of all walks come together to do that regularly WITHOUT the benefit of a priest.
Maybe we can meet in Jerusalem in the fall.
Once I fall over money again, I'll certainly go back.
And my regards to Marv and his support for the Ethiopians. Ethiopian Jews (actually members of the tribe of Dan) have for too long been dismissed by the Jewish state and didn't receive the support they should have received.
It's NOT PRIESTS; It's ELDERS. The word in the Greek is ELDERS. IT is NOT Priest.
I checked this and it's Acts 14:23.
Luther (German) 1545:
Und sie ordneten ihnen hin und her Älteste in den Gemeinden, beteten und fasteten und befahlen sie dem HERRN, an den sie gläubig geworden waren.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2014&version=LUTH1545
"Älteste" means "elders".
Worldwide English:
They chose leaders for them in every church. They talked with God and fasted. When they were finished, they gave the leaders over to the Lord's care, because they believed in him.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2014&version=WE
Says "leaders" here.
Some Greek version:
χειροτονησαντες δε αυτοις πρεσβυτερους κατ εκκλησιαν προσευξαμενοι μετα νηστειων παρεθεντο αυτους τω κυριω εις ον πεπιστευκεισαν
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2014&version=TR1550
πρεσβυτερους (presbyteroys) means "elders":
http://translate.google.com/translate_t?hl=&ie=UTF-8&text=%CF%80%CF%81%CE%B5%CF%83%CE%B2%CF%85%CF%84%CE%B5%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%85%CF%82+&sl=el&tl=en#
So back to Lula for another quote that says something about priests.
And I still want to know how Judaism was the "first organic, priestly sacrificial Divinely revealed religion" even though Abraham ran into a priest of G-d who is apparently regarded as the source of Catholic priestdom. Melchizedek and Jethro definitely followed a "priestly sacrificial Divinely revealed religion", so how could Judaism have been the first? Moses and Aarons foundation of Judaism happened a long time after Abraham's meeting with Melchizedek and after Moses' meeting with Jethro.
Thank you Leauki. Exactly as I wrote up in #58.
I second that. Like I said...it's NOT about evidence but all about responding to the evidence that matters.
For both of you: I tried to write a blog on the Third Temple and it's significance to endtime prophecies ONLY to have it disappear twice (very weird) before I could post it. Since I don't wish to write it all over again, I'll just share this link with you I read today. The rebuilding of the Jewish Temple and the reinstating of the Priesthood in Jerusalem is VERY VERY important to endtime theology. I've been saying this for years (as you know) and been scoffed at (like this could even be a reality) believing this since I was a young child. In the 60's and 70's it certainly didn't look like much of a reality. Well it's all set to go and the Jews are trying to get this done immediately by their ad campaign. Here's the short link about it I read today.
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=20840
Lula posts: Wrong again, KFC. Just becasue Protestantism rejects the Church, her authority and sacerdotal priesthood doesn't mean they don't exist in the NT. What does Hebrews 5:1 and verse 4 say? Aaron was called by God for a special priesthood as are these NT priests are called by God to offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins.
As already noted in Acts 15, the Protestant King James Version has changed "priest" to "elder". Yet, in Hebrews 5:1, 3-4 the KJV has "For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. 4 And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, like Aaron."
St.Paul is describing the Catholic Priesthood here.
Leauki posts:
KFC POSTS: I second that. Like I said...it's NOT about evidence but all about responding to the evidence that matters.
Well, for one....Hebrews 5:1, 3-4 quotes something about priests.
And there are more:
Read the First Epistle of St.Paul to Timothy ....About 33 years after Our Lord ascended into Heaven, St.Paul writes to Timothy, who then was Bishop of Ephesus. St.Paul is instructing him in the duties of a bishop both in respect to himself, to those under his priestly care, as well as how he should behave towards his own clergy. He tells him he ought to be well-informed of those on whom he was to "impose hands"...(ordain into the hierarchial priesthood).
Chapter 3 is full of references to bishops and deacons. V.1 "This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work." v.2 "A bishop must be blameless,...." v. 5 "For if a man not know how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the Church of God?"
V. 8 begins St.Paul's instructions to Timothy on how deacons of the Church are supposed to be. And V. 15 sums it up..."But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou ought to behave thyself in the House of God, which is the Church of the living God (Jesus Christ), the pillar and ground of truth." The Church of the living God Who is Jesus Christ, is the same Church as per St. Matt. 16:18-19 and the Catholic Church, CHrist's Chruch built on the foundation rock of St.Peter is the pillar and ground of Truth.
Now, that's enough to convince me, but wait...there's more...lots more.
1Timothy, chapter 5....in verse 1, we get the true meaning of elder as an older person...the KJV has "elder", the DR has "ancient" meaning old..."An ancient (KJV elder) man, rebuke not, but entreat him as a father; a young man as brethren."
Then skip down to v. 17, the KJV has "elder" here as well, while the DR has "priest"... "Let the priests (KJV "elders") who rule well be esteemed worthy of double honor, espeically those who labor in the word and doctrine." And v. 19, "Against a priest (elder KJV), receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses."
Isn't the KJV using the same word "elder" in v. 1 and in v. 17 interesting...or I should say confusing!
We know he is talking about the sacerdotal priesthood becasue of v. 22-22 which says, "I charge thee before God and Christ, Jesus, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing by partiality. 22 Impose not hands lightly upon any man, neither be partaker of other men's sins..."
And let's not forget good ol' St.James...
St.James 5:14 concerns the priests' duty in the Sacrament of Extreme Unction also called the ANointing of the Sick,
"Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the Church and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord." The KJV has "elders" instead of priests.
And as for something about the sacerdotal "priesthood", look at 1Tim. 4:14, "Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of hands of the priesthood." (instead of "priesthood", KJV has "presbytery").
Lula posts:
Acts 15:2, ".....they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain others of the other side, should go up to the Apostles and priests (KJV "elders") to Jerusalem about this question."
Acts 15:4, "And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the Chruch and of the Apostles and priests (KJV "elders") and they declared all things that GOd had done."
I said,
Look up the word "priest" and you'll find the word "presbyter".
priest
In many Christian churches, a member of the second grade of clergy ranking below a bishop but above a deacon and having authority to administer the sacraments.
A person having the authority to perform and administer religious rites.
I say "priest" and you say "elder". Well, check out the context...at this point we are discussing Chapter 15...read the Book of Acts from chapter one and you'll see the events build on one another; it's the chronological development of the early Catholic Church...chapters 6, 8, 13 and 14 describe the "Imposition of hands", which is the rite of the New Covenant priesthood that Catholics have had from the Apostles through today.
The Oxford English Dictionary says, under "elder', that the title was borrowed and attached to those whom we call priests.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
