Calvinist calls himself Catholic?

[jmtosh]

*I guess you’ve never read Exodus 25, or 1 Kings 6. Both chapters are excellent proofs of cherubim being carved. So does Judaism fall into those “mystery religions” you talk about?

On the priesthood, you said it yourself in the above quote that there were priests in the OT, (before the 3rd century ). Also, what about James 5? Presbyters (priests!!!) are performing the sacraments of Anointing of the Sick and Penance!

I’m afraid you will have to get used to multiple people addressing your claims when you come to CAF. You’re a non-Catholic and we are quite enthusiastic for defending Holy Mother Church. I hope you stick around and that what you learn here will make you think! *

Ah, the old Cherubim explanation! The Old Testment structures of the Tabernacle, the Temple and their furniture were to provide God’s people (specifically Christians as in 1 Corinthians 10) with instruction in the form of shadows and types of what was to come in Christ. That is a far cry from using an image in worship which was forbidden by the 2nd Commandment.
In the New Testament there are Elders, Bishops and Pastors. Presbuteros is primarily an elder. Thayer applies it to the Sanhedrin in the sense of an elder of Israel. In the Church of Christ it is not used of a priest. Peter says that all believers are a royal priethood, a holy nation. We have one High Priest, even Jesus a High Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. In fact, the whole book of Hebrews talks of priests and makes it clear that they were of the Old Covenant. Judaism was made obsolete by the reality of the things it foreshadowed.
James 5 says if any is sick (I believe at death’s door) let him call for the elders of the Church (plural) and they will anoint him with oil and pray for him. His prayer of faith will save him and his sins will be forgiven.
I do always think about what people say and I do not like to just argue for the sake of it. Appreciate your comments.

 

[elvisman]

Pepin petitioned the Pope by means of an embassy he sent to Rome asking if he could claim the royal title. Zacharias decided in his favour and Pepin was anointed King of the Franks. However, the relationship between the papacy and the German princes was mutually beneficial and a shrewd move.

In January 754 ***“Pope Stephen II arrived at Pepin’s villa …to ask for the help of the Franks against his neighbours, the Lombards. In 751 the Lombards had conquered the Exarchy of Ravenna, and the threat to the temporal power of the Pope had grown until King Aistulf was threatening the Roman ducatus itself. An alliance was formed and Pepin undertook to assist and protect the Papacy, and to restore the Pope the Exarchy as well as the Respublica Romanorum conquered by Aistulf”. ***
Peter Lasko, *The Kingdom of the Franks *[1971] Thames & Hudson, London.

As you said rudimentary History- should have read further! I have not read Boettner on this subject and so would not know about that. I go straight to the Historians for History.

As regards the Church, my point is that yes, Christ promised to build His Church and the gates of Hades would not prevail against it. Anyone who has faith in Jesus Christ is in His body, the Church. The Church are believers in Christ not an institution or a building. Not based at the Vatican. Jesus taught that His Kingdom was not of this world. If any body of men abandon the proclamation of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ and His atoning death, burial and resurrection as taught by the Apostles in the Bible and by the early Church they are Anathema in the words of Paul himself.

With all due respect is it not true that the Roman Catholic / Latin Church has taught salvation by sacraments, works and yes, even by Crusade/ Is it not true that the “Church” denies the sufficiency of Christ’s blood atonement on the cross to fully satisfy and propitiate the Father?

As for the consecrating of Greaco - Roman gods. I wasn’t trying to avoid answering Newsy. There are at least 3 to 5 people that responded to me and I have not had time to basically respond to each so give me a break pal.

St. Bacchus the Matyr whose feast day is October 7th. St. Dionysius (which is the Greek Bacchus). The pagan “Festum Dionysi Eleutherei rusticum” or the ‘rustic feast of Dionysius Eleuthereus’ has been converted into the worship of 3 saints: October 9th - the Festival of St. Dionysius and of his companions, St. Eleuther and St. Rustic.

Other festal days are the feast of the Lupercalia becoming St. Valentines’ Day and Christmas, formerly the Saturnalia or the rebirth of the sun god after the winter solstice - December 25th.

The use of statues, halos and other paraphernalia were brought into the State “Church” from the Mystery Religions and the priesthood was borrowed from the Old Testament. There is no mention of a Priesthood prior to the 3rd century but there were poatriarchs of the different Churches.

Your ignorance of the Catholic Church - and history is astounding, to say the least.

You’ve never read from Boettner, eh?? You are quoting line for line from his heavily debunked book, which goes hand in hand with another pile of rubbish written by Alexander Hislop called, "The Two Babylons". Did you even bother to research the claim in this book? Hislop didn’t, either.

This book has been debunked - even by former students of his. One of them - Ralph Woodrow - wrote a book called, "The Babylon Connection?". Woodrow debunked the false charges by Hislop that the Catholic Church gleaned their practice of pagan idolatry and goddess worship from the Mesopotamian ruler, Nimrod and his mother, Semiramis (some sources claim she was also his wife).

Sloppy “history”, pal . . .

 

[elvisman]

As for the Church - if it was “truly Catholic and Apostolic and proclaimed Christian truth and the Word of God”, for the first few centuries - when did it stop teaching the truth and what truths did it pervert?"

Pepin petitioned the Pope by means of an embassy he sent to Rome asking if he could claim the royal title. Zacharias decided in his favour and Pepin was anointed King of the Franks. However, the relationship between the papacy and the German princes was mutually beneficial and a shrewd move.

In January 754 ***“Pope Stephen II arrived at Pepin’s villa …to ask for the help of the Franks against his neighbours, the Lombards. In 751 the Lombards had conquered the Exarchy of Ravenna, and the threat to the temporal power of the Pope had grown until King Aistulf was threatening the Roman ducatus itself. An alliance was formed and Pepin undertook to assist and protect the Papacy, and to restore the Pope the Exarchy as well as the Respublica Romanorum conquered by Aistulf”. ***
Peter Lasko, *The Kingdom of the Franks *[1971] Thames & Hudson, London.

As you said rudimentary History- should have read further! I have not read Boettner on this subject and so would not know about that. I go straight to the Historians for History.

As regards the Church, my point is that yes, Christ promised to build His Church and the gates of Hades would not prevail against it. Anyone who has faith in Jesus Christ is in His body, the Church. The Church are believers in Christ not an institution or a building. Not based at the Vatican. Jesus taught that His Kingdom was not of this world. If any body of men abandon the proclamation of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ and His atoning death, burial and resurrection as taught by the Apostles in the Bible and by the early Church they are Anathema in the words of Paul himself.

With all due respect is it not true that the Roman Catholic / Latin Church has taught salvation by sacraments, works and yes, even by Crusade/ Is it not true that the “Church” denies the sufficiency of Christ’s blood atonement on the cross to fully satisfy and propitiate the Father?

As for the consecrating of Greaco - Roman gods. I wasn’t trying to avoid answering Newsy. There are at least 3 to 5 people that responded to me and I have not had time to basically respond to each so give me a break pal.

St. Bacchus the Matyr whose feast day is October 7th. St. Dionysius (which is the Greek Bacchus). The pagan “Festum Dionysi Eleutherei rusticum” or the ‘rustic feast of Dionysius Eleuthereus’ has been converted into the worship of 3 saints: October 9th - the Festival of St. Dionysius and of his companions, St. Eleuther and St. Rustic.

Other festal days are the feast of the Lupercalia becoming St. Valentines’ Day and Christmas, formerly the Saturnalia or the rebirth of the sun god after the winter solstice - December 25th.

The use of statues, halos and other paraphernalia were brought into the State “Church” from the Mystery Religions and the priesthood was borrowed from the Old Testament. There is no mention of a Priesthood prior to the 3rd century but there were poatriarchs of the different Churches.

As for your claim that there was “no mention of the priesthood before the 3rd century” - wrong again. The Bible itself talks about the ministerial Priesthood:**

James 5:14-15 “If anyone is sick, let him call on the presbuteros (priests) of the Church. They shall pray for him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. The prayer said in faith will save the sick person; the Lord will raise him up and if he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven.”

---

In 2 Cor. 5:18-20, Paul says of the priesthood: “And all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and given us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, as if God were appealing through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”**

---

In the Epistle of Jude, we read the warning about those who would usurp Church Authority by assuming the ministerial priesthood without the Church’s consent (Jude 1:11). In this passage he compares them to the rebellion of Korah and their subsequent punishment (Numbers 16:1-35; 31:16).

---

**In the Letter of Clement (AD 95) - he chastised the Corinthians for ousting their priests without consent from Rome and tells them that they must be reinstated.

**In the Old Testament, there were three levels of Priests: Aaron, the High Priest, the Levitical Priesthood, and the rest of the people were a general priesthood of believers.

---

In the New Testament, there are also three levels of Priests: Jesus, our High Priest (1 Tim. 2:5, Heb. 7:22-25), the Ministerial/Levitical Priests (James 5:14-15) and the general priesthood of all Christians (1 Peter 2:5-9).

 

[elvisman]

I guess you’ve never read Exodus 25, or 1 Kings 6. Both chapters are excellent proofs of cherubim being carved. So does Judaism fall into those “mystery religions” you talk about?

On the priesthood, you said it yourself in the above quote that there were priests in the OT, (before the 3rd century ). Also, what about James 5? Presbyters (priests!!!) are performing the sacraments of Anointing of the Sick and Penance!

*I’m afraid you will have to get used to multiple people addressing your claims when you come to CAF. You’re a non-Catholic and we are quite enthusiastic for defending Holy Mother Church. I hope you stick around and that what you learn here will make you think! *

Ah, the old Cherubim explanation! The Old Testment structures of the Tabernacle, the Temple and their furniture were to provide God’s people (specifically Christians as in 1 Corinthians 10) with instruction in the form of shadows and types of what was to come in Christ. That is a far cry from using an image in worship which was forbidden by the 2nd Commandment.
In the New Testament there are Elders, Bishops and Pastors. Presbuteros is primarily an elder. Thayer applies it to the Sanhedrin in the sense of an elder of Israel. In the Church of Christ it is not used of a priest. Peter says that all believers are a royal priethood, a holy nation. We have one High Priest, even Jesus a High Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. In fact, the whole book of Hebrews talks of priests and makes it clear that they were of the Old Covenant. Judaism was made obsolete by the reality of the things it foreshadowed.
James 5 says if any is sick (I believe at death’s door) let him call for the elders of the Church (plural) and they will anoint him with oil and pray for him. His prayer of faith will save him and his sins will be forgiven.
I do always think about what people say and I do not like to just argue for the sake of it. Appreciate your comments.

 

[elvisman]

Ah, the old Cherubim explanation! The Old Testment structures of the Tabernacle, the Temple and their furniture were to provide God’s people (specifically Christians as in 1 Corinthians 10) with instruction in the form of shadows and types of what was to come in Christ. That is a far cry from using an image in worship which was forbidden by the 2nd Commandment.
In the New Testament there are Elders, Bishops and Pastors. Presbuteros is primarily an elder. Thayer applies it to the Sanhedrin in the sense of an elder of Israel. In the Church of Christ it is not used of a priest. Peter says that all believers are a royal priethood, a holy nation. We have one High Priest, even Jesus a High Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. In fact, the whole book of Hebrews talks of priests and makes it clear that they were of the Old Covenant. Judaism was made obsolete by the reality of the things it foreshadowed.
James 5 says if any is sick (I believe at death’s door) let him call for the elders of the Church (plural) and they will anoint him with oil and pray for him. His prayer of faith will save him and his sins will be forgiven.
I do always think about what people say and I do not like to just argue for the sake of it. Appreciate your comments.

WRONG again. More shoddy research.

**First of all, Moses was ordered by God to make a bronze serpent (Num. 21:4–9) so that when the people looked upon it, they would be cured. That’s where we get the symbol for the medical profession today.

Secondly - you dismiss the cherubim atop the Ark but you forget that the Temple of Solomon was replete with carved figures and cherubim.

Lastly - Presbuteros and priest are synonymous. The Greek word presbuteros has two definitions: the literal senior, and what morphed into priest. Over time, presbuteros became “prester”, and prester became “priest”.

Your historical research is shameful - and you’re not even a very good anti-Catholic . . .

 

[elvisman]

In January 754 ***“Pope Stephen II arrived at Pepin’s villa …to ask for the help of the Franks against his neighbours, the Lombards. In 751 the Lombards had conquered the Exarchy of Ravenna, and the threat to the temporal power of the Pope had grown until King Aistulf was threatening the Roman ducatus itself. An alliance was formed and Pepin undertook to assist and protect the Papacy, and to restore the Pope the Exarchy as well as the Respublica Romanorum conquered by Aistulf”. ***
Peter Lasko, *The Kingdom of the Franks *[1971] Thames & Hudson, London.

As you said rudimentary History- should have read further! I have not read Boettner on this subject and so would not know about that. I go straight to the Historians for History.
So do I:
[27] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 11; “Pepin the Short”, pp 662-663.
Kelly, pg 90.
jmtosh;7740140:

As regards the Church, my point is that yes, Christ promised to build His Church and the gates of Hades would not prevail against it. Anyone who has faith in Jesus Christ is in His body, the Church. The Church are believers in Christ not an institution or a building. Not based at the Vatican. Jesus taught that His Kingdom was not of this world. If any body of men abandon the proclamation of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ and His atoning death, burial and resurrection as taught by the Apostles in the Bible and by the early Church they are Anathema in the words of Paul himself.

The Church consists of those who have faith in Jesus, do the will of God, are baptized in the Trinitarian formula and are obedient to the Church. they are the Bosy of Christ. However, there is much more to faith than simply “believing”:

**- Being baptized (**Matt. 28:19-20, John 3:5, Rom. 2:29, **** Col. 2:12-17, 1 Peter 3:21)

**- Picking up our cross **daily to follow him (Matt. 16:24, Luke 9:23)

- Works of mercy and charity (Matt. 19:21, 25:31–46, Luke 18:22)

**- Obeying his commandments **(John 15:10)

**- Doing the will of the Father **(Matt. 7:21)

**- Dying and being buried with him through Baptism **(Rom. 6:1-11)

**- We must suffer with Christ **(Matt. 10:38, 16:24, Mark 8:34, John 12:24, Rom. 8:17, 2 Cor. 1:5-7, Eph. 3:13, Phil. 1:29, 2 Tim. 1:8, 1 Peter 2:19-21, 4:1-2)

 

[Algo1]

As for your claim that there was “no mention of the priesthood before the 3rd century” - wrong** again. The Bible itself talks about the ministerial Priesthood:

James 5:14-15 “If anyone is sick, let him call on the presbuteros (priests) of the Church. They shall pray for him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. The prayer said in faith will save the sick person; the Lord will raise him up and if he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven.”

---

In 2 Cor. 5:18-20, Paul says of the priesthood:* “And all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and given us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to us* the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, as if God were appealing through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”

---

In the Epistle of Jude, we read the warning about those who would usurp Church Authority by assuming the ministerial priesthood without the Church’s consent (Jude 1:11). In this passage he compares them to the rebellion of Korah and their subsequent punishment (Numbers 16:1-35; 31:16).

---

In the Letter of Clement (AD 95) - he chastised the Corinthians for ousting their priests without consent from Rome and tells them that they must be reinstated.

In the Old Testament, there were three levels of Priests: Aaron, the High Priest, the Levitical Priesthood, and the rest of the people were a general priesthood of believers.

---

In the New Testament, there are also three levels of Priests: Jesus, our High Priest (1 Tim. 2:5, Heb. 7:22-25), the Ministerial/Levitical Priests (James 5:14-15) and the general priesthood of all Christians (1 Peter 2:5-9).

The terms episkopos and presbuteros were not “flexible” they were “interchangeable.” Not only in the Apostolic age but also in the Patristic age. Jerome attests to this in his quote regarding the 2 letters known as 1&2 Clement:
In both epistles commandment is given that only monogamists should, be chosen for the clerical office whether as bishops or as presbyters. Indeed with the ancients these names were synonymous, one alluding to the office, the other to the age of the clergy.
NPNF2: Vol. VI, The Letters of St. Jerome, Letter 69 - To Oceanus, 3.

**The word priest in English is derived from the Greek word “iereis”. ** I highly recommend the White/Pacwa Priesthood debate for a lengthy discussion on this.

Paul Speaks to the Ephesian Elders

Acts 20:17-36

17 Now from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the church to come to him.
18 And when they came to him, he said to them: “You yourselves know how I lived among you the whole time from the first day that I set foot in Asia,
19 serving the Lord with all humility and with tears and with trials that happened to me through the plots of the Jews;
20 how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from house to house,
21 testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.
22 And now, behold, I am going to Jerusalem, constrained by the Spirit, not knowing what will happen to me there,
23 except that the Holy Spirit testifies to me in every city that imprisonment and afflictions await me.
24 But I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God.
25 And now, behold, I know that none of you among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom will see my face again.
26 Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all of you,
27 for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.
28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.
29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;
30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.
31 Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish everyone with tears.
32 And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.
33 I coveted no one’s silver or gold or apparel.
34 You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me.
35 In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”
36 And when he had said these things, he knelt down and prayed with them all.

Please read the entire passage. Notice that Paul addresses the men he gathers in v. 17 as “Elders” “Presbuteros”.

 

[Quarles47]

How can a Calvinist call himself Catholic too? And refuse to admit that I am a Catholic and he is a Calvinist?

By lying.

Plain and simple.

And the sad thing is, that person is lying to themselves.

 

[elvisman]

The terms episkopos and presbuteros were not “flexible” they were “interchangeable.” Not only in the Apostolic age but also in the Patristic age. Jerome attests to this in his quote regarding the 2 letters known as 1&2 Clement:
In both epistles commandment is given that only monogamists should, be chosen for the clerical office whether as bishops or as presbyters. Indeed with the ancients these names were synonymous, one alluding to the office, the other to the age of the clergy.
NPNF2: Vol. VI, The Letters of St. Jerome, Letter 69 - To Oceanus, 3.

**The word priest in English is derived from the Greek word “iereis”. **I highly recommend the White/Pacwa Priesthood debate for a lengthy discussion on this.

Paul Speaks to the Ephesian Elders

Acts 20:17-36
Please read the entire passage. Notice that Paul addresses the men he gathers in v. 17 as “Elders” “Presbuteros”.

A square is a rectangle – but a rectangle isn’t necessarily a square.
A bishop is a priest but a priest isn’t necessarily a bishop.
**The same goes for with Episkopos (Bishop) and presbuteros (priest). **

---

These terms were not pulled out of thin air in the 3rd and 4th centuries. It seems almost comical to me that you would actually charge that these terms were invented by some Ante Nicene and the Post Nicene Fathers in some grand conspiracy. This means mean that they would have had to make everybody forget the traditions of the first 4 centuries of the Church to abide by these new rules. It simply didn’t happen.

---

The etymology of iereis shows that it means “spiritual ruler.”
Presbuteros, as I have shown, is the etymological root of the word Priest (English).
It appears that “iereis” is more indicative of the Jewish priesthood than it is with the Christian Church. That’s why it is not used to describe congregational leaders in the early Church (back to the rectangle/square comparison).

---

**Again - as I have ****already **shown - the word in English which morphed from presbuteros is priest. Presbuteros, which became prester, which became priest.

 

[steve_b]

Oh, excuse me, Rites. This is a matter of simple semantics, like jaywalking in Dodge city! Do you recognise the Catholicity of the Eastern Orthodox Church?

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2935402&postcount=25
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2935437&postcount=30
j:

Do you believe that they must be subject to the Roman Pontiff for salvation? In other words are you in the same Church as they? If not, then you are a schism or branch of the Catholic Church.

there is no branch theory.

Re: division / schism, answered next
j:

Protestants believe that they are part of the Church by faith in Jesus Christ according to the Word of God, the Bible.

The word of God is Jesus. Jesus established His Church on Peter in the 1st century. He didn’t start protestantism in the 16th century.

Paul, To the Church of Rome, the Church Protestants originally divided from in the 16th century.

Rm 16:
17 I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18 For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19 Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I rejoice because of you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil.

That’s as true in the 1st century as it is in the 16th century. What happens to those divided from the Church and remain divided from the Church?.

Gal 5:
19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like.I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Any wiggle room there?
j:

They and all who believe in Jesus are part of His body.

is Paul talking to/about believers in Jesus in those passages from Romans and Galatians? Yes. Paul is NOT talking to/about, pagans. Yet Paul says SOME belivers have divided from the Church. To divide from the Church must mean they were in the Church previously. Therefore, If they continue in their division, and don’t return to the Church, they won’t inherit heaven.

IOW outside the Chuch there is no salvation.
j:

The Church is NOT an organisation or earthly institution but the spiritual house and temple of God as per the Apostle Peter in his First Epistle and the Apostle Paul in the First Epistle to the Corinthians.

What passages specifically are you referring to.
j:

The organised, institutionalised “Church” is an apostate, idolatrous religion.

Not even the gates of Hell will prevail against Our Lord’s Church. That’s the one He builds on Peter.[Mt 16:16…]
j:

Clement’s first Epistle to the Corinthians (yes I have a copy) is not a proof of Roman pre-eminence. Any student of Church history would know that at this early date the Bishop of Rome was not recognised as having authority over the whole Church Catholic. The letter rebukes the congregation for deposing their elders. He also refers to the Churches of Smyrna and Ephesus on an equal level with Rome.

I think you need to read the letter again,

Re: Clement’s letter,

• St John the apostle is still alive when Corinth appeals to Clement. John btw, is living closer to Corinth than Clement was over in Rome.
• Ephesus is closer to Corinth than Rome, and has bishops that can help Corinth
• Athens is only 50 miles away from Corinth. They are mentioned in Acts. They have valid bishops.
• Thessolonika is closer to Corinth than Rome. They have valid bishops,

Corinth needs immediate resolution to their sedition of bishops. Why did Corinth bypass these, and go to Rome?

Re: your comment that Clement said “Smyrna and Ephesus are equal to Rome”, here is Clement’s letter
newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm Clement doesn’t mention those cities.
j:

Ignatius of Antioch rebuked and encouraged Rome in his letter.

Where did Ignatius rebuke the Church of Rome?
J:

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies, confronts gnostics who tout a secret oral doctrine they obtained from the Apostles (hmmm, ring any bells?) and shows that it is the Church of Christ that can trace their authority to the Apostles by the scriptures and their faith.

Read what Irenaeus said

Bk 3 Ch 3, vs 2-4
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

As you read that section from Irenaeus, keep in mind, he is only one man away from John the apostle.

(cont)

 

[steve_b]

I am a Protestant. I believe that the early Church was Catholic in that it was a common, universal body of believers through faith in Christ. Please note that this Church of the early fathers was not supervised by Rome or by a Pope so the claim by the RCC that they gave us the Bible and they were the Church is false.

We know you’re a Protestant. And what I note is, your opinion is without any evidence to back up what you say.
j:

It was the Apostolic Church of Christ. In fact the Byzantine Church did more to give us the Bible and have a greater claim to Apostolic provenance than Rome ever has.

We know what your opinion is, do you have some historical quotes of that era, you’d like to quote to support your opinion?
j:

After the Constantinian change the church was infused with paganism and idolatry. The Donatists realised thay could not be part of a State Church with a Pontifex Maximus and left. They have my heartfelt sympathies.The truth is that Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church and nobody else.

Yes Jesus is head of His Church. And He made Peter His prime minister to be over the entire Church. His office will continue till the end of time as Jesus promised.

But what about what you just said previously re: Byzantine’s did more to give us the Bible and have a greater claim to Apostolic provenance than Rome ever has. Now you say, after Constantine, the Church was infused with paganism and idolatry.

Which is it? I think you’re guilty of fire-ready-aim.
j:

In 1517, God used Martin Luther, a priest and monk to awaken Europe to the truth of God’s word. In fact most Protestants were priests who realised that the Papacy were misleading the laity and increasingly becoming Apostate. John Calvin in France and Knox in Scotland were also persuaded of the truth of Justification by faith in Jesus Christ and His atoning work on the cross. They may not all see eye to eye on minor points of scripture but are persuaded of the weightier matters pertaining to salvation. We are justified by God through faith in His blood. Hallelujah, Amen!

God used heretics like Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII, Knox, et, al. to oppose His own Church? Who tells you that stuff? And you believed it?
j:

So, what can be said of a visible Church full of ritual and idolatry and without the Word of God? Which is the true Church, those justified by faith in Jesus or those who persecute His followers? Who is more Orthodox, those that maintain the orthodox doctrines of scripture or those who add to scripture with Papal bulls and decrees, councils and blasphemous pronouncements?

The Lord Jesus Christ taught that the Kingdom of God is within you and doesn’t come with observation. He taught faith in Him as a requirement for salvation.

Now THAT’s a Protestant rant!

 

[jmtosh]

WRONG again. More shoddy research.

*First of all, Moses was ordered by God to make a bronze serpent (Num. 21:4–9) so that when the people looked upon it, they would be cured. That’s where we get the symbol for the medical profession today.

Secondly - you dismiss the cherubim atop the Ark but you forget that the Temple of Solomon was replete with carved figures and cherubim.

Lastly - Presbuteros and priest are synonymous. The Greek word presbuteros has two definitions: the literal senior, and what morphed into priest. Over time, presbuteros became “prester”, and prester became “priest”.

Your historical research is shameful - and you’re not even a very good anti-Catholic . . .
__________________*

I resent your cheap insults. Why don’t you apply your epithets to yourself? Since when has discussing the use of imagery in worship in the Biblical text been equated with Historical Research. You are merely picking up on the venom of your coleaugues whom I shall address hereunder.

Firstly, whose research is **SHODDIER **- yours or mine. You refer to the brazen serpent. Good and well, Moses was to use this on that one instance as a type of Christ (read John 3). The children of Israel were so fallen that they began worshipping it.

If you had only read 2 KINGS 18:4 “He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made: FOR UNTO THOSE DAYS THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL DID BURN INCENSE UNTO IT; and he called it Nehushtan (vain or worthless).”

That demolishes your argument. You are WRONG in saying this is an example of images used for worship. Also, the Cherubium would have been in the holy of holies where only the High priest entered. They would not be gazed upon and adored by the faithful! It is tremendously important to consider context when you read the Bible. Idolatry and even images of God are forbidden by the Commandments of Yahweh!!! Period.

Obviously there were Old Testament priests mentioned in the bible before the 5th and 6th centuries. I am patently (in context) referring to the New Testament** CHURCH**, or did you forget that?
As for the brother who, with the zeal of a rabid dog, accused me of quoting Boettner. I said I had not. He refused to believed me. I told you I was quoting from Peter Lasko. I did use a description from the Two Babylons to answer the question posed to me. I was then accused of poor research. Suffice to say that my response (which he said was Boettner - as I said I didn’t know Boettner wrote of that subject) actually countered his historical quip and I cited a source for this which is a lot more than he did. He’s Boettner mad, completely indoctrinated!.

For his benefit and others I have taken the liberty of scanning the relevant parts. In addition, I would like to point out that it is common knowledge to anybody who has read anything about the so called Christianisation of Europe that pagan places of worship and images were consecrated and used in the “Church”. I have therefore scanned in an allusion to this by Peter Blair in his work on the Ango- Saxons. Of note is his reference to the goddess Eostre or Easter.

Well, I tried to upload the files and I was told to contact the System Administrator of this site. Suffice to say that in respect of Pepin and Rome I quoted Peter Lasko’s work THE KINGDOM OF THE FRANKS Northwest Europe before Charlemagne [1971] Thames & Hudson, London p.128.

Peter Hunter Blair in his monumental work AN INTRODUCTION TO ANGLO-SAXON ENGLAND [1962] Cambridge University Press, Cambridge on pp 120 - 123 demonstrates how the Roman missionaries (as opposed to Celtic independent missionaries) were instructed by Pope Gregory I to not destroy heathen temples only the idols. The buildings were to be purified and made into churches. Sacrifices of animals were allowed for Christian feasts. Later he changed his mind and ordered the destruction of temples.

“…there are some indications that Augustine and his successors followed the policy of attempting to assimilate as much of the old ways as was consistent with the Christian faith.” He goes on to relate how that the church of St. Pancras in Canterbury was built within the precincts of a pagan temple but "perhaps the most remarkable application of this policy was the retention of the name of a heathen goddess, Eostre, and its use for the greatest of Christian festivals. In Kent itself, where Christianity was strongest, the haethen relapsed back into idolatry and no formal edict for the destruction of idols was issued until the 7th century. The old heathen year began on 25th December and was called “Yule” as was the last month. The fourth month was Eostre.

Another excellent book is the **Odham’s Country Lovers Companion **which tells of all the pagan practises throughout England that were retained and practised by the “Church”, to cite all of them would be impossible as they are so numerous. Wassailing, or tree worship on Twelth night, the Lupercalia and St. Valentine’s day, Dressing of the wells by clergy at Tissingham, All Hallows Eve or Halo we’en the Celtic Samhain, etc.

In the light of this Hislop’s Two Babylons does not appear too wide of the mark!

It seems that what you don’t like are factual citations that differ with your ingrained perception of Holy Mother Church.

To the brother that called me a liar I say “Let God be true and every man a liar!”

 

[jmtosh]

Elvis impersonator - the New Testament verses you cite on the priesthood are shaky at best. The one in James realtes to elders. The we of 2 Corinthians is believers in Christ. There is no mention of priests. As I said Thayer, a Koine Greek expert of reknown does not mention this. Only Roman Catholic indoctrination will persuade you that these verses relate to priests.

The book of Hebrews talks of OT priests, a priethood that was abolished by Christ, our merciful and faithful High Priest. The book of Revelation in Chapter 1 calls Christians “kings and priests” to our God and His Father. The other reference is by Peter who calls the Church a spiritual building, a holy nation of priests. All believers in Jesus Christ are Priests. There is one High Priest and mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.

 

[jmtosh]

It was the Apostolic Church of Christ. In fact the Byzantine Church did more to give us the Bible and have a greater claim to Apostolic provenance than Rome ever has.

The laborious and faithful copying of Byzantine MSS of the Greek Church on which all texts of the Bible from the 16th Century. Besides these texts there were no other biblical MSS before the 19th Century. There was Jerome’s Latin Vulgate text but this was a translation from the Greek and not a Greek MS.

It is well known that Constantine was not a Christian and that paganism infused the Church. I could cite a work but you would probably insult me further as in your Orwellian world only the Catholic writers of history are esteemed. Suffice to say OXFORD CHURCH TEXT BOOKS HISTORY OF THE CHURCH TO AD 325 by H.N. Bate, London 1949.

 

[jmtosh]

The fact that Constantine was responsible for the paganisation of the Church does not mean that he is not to be commended for the Nicaean Council of 325. In the same way the faithful compilation and preservation of MSS by the Eastern Church is laudable.

 

[jmtosh]

Hey Elvis,

I agree with your brother’s explanation that priest comes from the Latin and Greek hierarkia . From which we also get the word hierarchy. You had to have a go at him too!The word Priest is Old English. That this word was derived from Presbuteros is another matter.
In the same reasoning Elvis Presley was actually Elvis Priestly which links him with J.B. Priestly who wrote Death in the Cathedral about St. Thomas Beckett…

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Scripture appears to refer to 2 priestly forms - the priesthood of all believers; and Christ’s calling aside the 12 (those whom the Catholic Church considers the “proto-priesthood” of the New Order). The 12 Christ called aside he gave the rite of performing the sacraments, as evidenced by the 12’s relationship with him in the Text.
Sometimes words are not sufficient - we have to look at relationship in action.

 

[Jimmytwoguns]

Hello Chums,

I haven’t posted any belligerent defences of the One True Church for some time, Elvisman seems to be keeping back the hereical tide pretty well on his own.

I’m always dsiappointed to see / hear young zealous christians hailing from one of the zillion or so different denominations, rant on about things they think no-one else has ever thought about, and do not research in a non biased fashion, but merely trot out the same old rubbish they’ve learned from someone else, who has carried out equally badly research and so the groaning bandwaggon rolls on. Again Elvisman has adequately covered this point.

Catholics do not worship the Blessed Virgin, never have, never will. Our Lady is alive, in Heaven with Christ and we ask Our Lady to pray for us, as we ask our friends and relations alive on earth to pray for us too. Scripture tells us that the prayer of a righteous person is of great effect, and as the righteous people go (though all by God’s Grace) Mary is at the top of that tree!

So often people are simply desperate to believe the Catholic Church is "idolatrous or whatever, and if some serious protestant scholars taught these people the truth about catholic doctrine then a great deal of misunderstanding and bigotry could be avoided, but of course they would rather their flock remain ignorant so they can remain bigoted.

For example. the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Our Lady, means, as promulgated by Pope Pius 1X, “Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular PRIVILEGE and GRACE]granted by GOD, in view of the MERITS OF JESUS CHRIST, the SAVIOUR of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin.”

So,the merits of Jesus’s death on the cross saved and sanctified Mary from her conception, as God foresaw she would be the Mother of Christ, just as Jesus’ death sanctified St John the Baptist in his mother’s womb before he was born, as stated in St Luke’s gospel. We are all saved by Jesus’ sacrifice, Pronouncements by the Church of this type serve to guard the essentials of our Christian belief from encroaching heresy.

Recently, one of my children was sitting a religious education exam at Higher level at a state school. The authorised text book from which she was being taught, stated that the Roman Catholic Church believed in the “Virgin Birth of Christ” as an essential tenet of the Faith, but I was shocked to read, as the official exam textbook stated, it was perfectly possible to be an acting member of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland (The National Church) without believing in the Virgin Birth. It was a matter of CHOICE!

God bless,

Jimmy Two Guns

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Jimmy, maybe for the Presbyterian Church of Scotland it’s a choice.
Many of the early Church Fathers debated it.
Today there still remains some conjecture how it physiologically took place.

Is belief in Our Lady’s perpetual virginity an essential tenet of the Catholic Faith?

 

[ESMDHokie77]

I’ve come to acknowledge elvisman as an apologist without apology. carry on!

It would be interesting to find out what our Orthodox brethren think of jmtosh stating that Constantine is responsible for the paganization of the church.