Can a "normal Joe" interpret Bible passages/scripture?

[MrS]

Doreen:

How can we add to that? Jesus is our GREAT TEACHER. I used to teach, and one tactic I used was to always “REPEAT WHAT IS GOING TO BE ON THE TEST!” I also would often precede the important information with “Now pay attention.” Or “Remember this…” Jesus precedes all of his “bottom lines” with “I tell you the truth” – ever notice that? Do a concordance study on it sometime and see whether you need anyone (other than the Holy Spirit) to help you discern his message!

The key to discernment is to have the Spirit…the key to the Spirit is to “submit” to the LORD as GOD…your personal King…Lord of your life. And to know Christ, His Son, as your Saviour…through whose very Name the Spirit comes.

Doesn’t matter what “Church” you find this in…God can reach us where ever we are at. Ours is to respond.

In His Mercy and Grace,
D.

Using your insight, I strongly suggest you turn (again I hope) to John 6, and read how FOUR TIMES Jesus “preceeds His botom line”

Truly, Truly and Amen, Amen are certainly important to what the message is. The Real Presence is only possible under His rules… which include the ministerial priesthood, the Mass, and the Eucharist … all of which only exist in the Catholic Church which the Lord founded.

ya in…? … or are ya out?

If does matter, however, what church you finally end up in by totally accepting His Word.

 

[Doreen]

MrS:

Using your insight, I strongly suggest you turn (again I hope) to John 6, and read how FOUR TIMES Jesus “preceeds His botom line”

Truly, Truly and Amen, Amen are certainly important to what the message is. The Real Presence is only possible under His rules… which include the ministerial priesthood, the Mass, and the Eucharist … all of which only exist in the Catholic Church which the Lord founded.
QUOTE]

I read it and understand this:
“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.”
“The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.”

I don’t understand where the teaching abouts the priesthood (as designed and presented by the Catholic church) and where the “Mass” is described?

I will decline any more discussion abou the Eucharist, since this is simply a difference of interpretation…which many will disagree with. “The SPIRIT gives life” is the part I choose to take “literally” … you choose to take literally: “if you eat the flesh of the Son of man…” How do we resolve this but to pray and not judge?

To me, He is simply saying “allow Him to enter in” —allow Him to satisfy you as bread would. Allow Him to be your sustanance.

So this is sadly a serious difference in interpretation…and I won’t tell you that you will be excluded from the Lamb’s Book of Life for believing as you do…and I would appreciate your resistance to judge me as well.

One way to settle it in our hearts is to see where the fruit lives. That is…are people turning away from sin because they have “eaten the flesh” (taken the Eucharist) or are they turning away because they have asked the Spirit into their hearts? This is one way to qualify where the Power truly is obtained.

Just a quick note about the “priesthood”…my understanding is that “we are a royal priesthood” in Christ. Something that was revealed again to me last night: Hebrews 6-10 brings to light the new priesthood of the Covenant in His blood.

I appreciate your staunch reverence to what you hold to be true. I enjoy the debate and I pray for all truth to be revealed.
D.

 

[Nicene]

SolaChristo:

The Scribes and Pharasees in Jesus day knew the religious system but did not know God for if they had they would have recognized Jesus.

You truly don’t understand. Jesus wasn’t against any religious practice. In fact he says you should be doing both.

Mt 23:23: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

Unfortunately you have done just as the pharisees, yet going to the other extreme. Now you neglect the other, when you should be doing both.

The new covenant that Jesus put in place is for everyman to know God on a personal level, no cliches no slogans but the Almighty, Transcendent Creator of all things. not a religious system.

With all due respect you made that up. This is the new covenant:

Lk 22:20: And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

Christ is the expiation for sin, he extended this covenant to the gentiles. As he reminds the pharisees they did it for show, to be seen and calls them to truly worship God with all their heart. The pharisees kept people out (especially the outer court where the gentiles were to pray and they set up tables to sell).

The church does no such thing, you are invited in any time to worship in fellowship as God intended. All the sacraments were set up by Christ himself, he doesn’t abolish the law, he fulfils it.

Those who cannot accept what Jesus teaches are like those in John 6, they walk away because it is too hard for them to accept. The temple of God is within you as Christ is in you and in each other. Christ set up a heirarchy which we see formed in the Gospels, Acts, Thessalonians, Timothy etc. If you choose not to accept what He set up, that is your business.

Christ gave us the church because he knew we couldn’t go it alone, we are not orphans. Graces flow through the sacraments for our benefit through his unending mercy. We just have to say yes, and not walk away. Trust in Him. Anything else is pure pride.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[mercygate]

Doreen:

I don’t understand where the teaching abouts the priesthood (as designed and presented by the Catholic church) and where the “Mass” is described?

The Mass is instituted at the Last Supper, the Mass is Calvary, it is the Resurrection , it is the Lamb’s supper. If the Mass is not described in Scripture then neither is “the Lord’s Supper” celebrated by Protestants.

. . . Just a quick note about the “priesthood”…my understanding is that “we are a royal priesthood” in Christ. Something that was revealed again to me last night: Hebrews 6-10 brings to light the new priesthood of the Covenant in His blood.

In the New Testament you will find bishops, priests (presbyters is the Greek word from which our word “priest” is derived) and deacons, and you will see a differentiation of ministry. There is a ministerial priesthood as well as the priesthood we all share in Christ. The existence of the ministerial priesthood does not exclude the universal priesthood of all Christians.

 

[MrS]

Doreen:

MrS:

Using your insight, I strongly suggest you turn (again I hope) to John 6, and read how FOUR TIMES Jesus “preceeds His botom line”

Truly, Truly and Amen, Amen are certainly important to what the message is. The Real Presence is only possible under His rules… which include the ministerial priesthood, the Mass, and the Eucharist … all of which only exist in the Catholic Church which the Lord founded.
QUOTE]

I read it and understand this:
“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.”
"The words I have spoken

to you are spirit and they are life."

• WHAT ARE THE WORDS ??? duhhhh*

I don’t understand where the teaching abouts the priesthood (as designed and presented by the Catholic church) and where the “Mass” is described?

• Not understanding is a common problem when one relies only on their own capabilities to read scripture.*

I will decline any more discussion abou the Eucharist, since this is simply a difference of interpretation…which many will disagree with.

• “… and they walked away…” Some things never change.*

“The SPIRIT gives life” is the part I choose to take “literally” … you choose to take literally: “if you eat the flesh of the Son of man…” How do we resolve this but to pray and not judge?

you choose?? oops… big mistake

To me, He is simply saying “allow Him to enter in” —allow Him to satisfy you as bread would. Allow Him to be your sustanance.

So this is sadly a serious difference in interpretation…and I won’t tell you that you will be excluded from the Lamb’s Book of Life for believing as you do…and I would appreciate your resistance to judge me as well.

*you can judge so easily… twice… telling me of my exclusion and then saying I was judging you. Who is your authority for this misleading stuff??/ Oh, I forgot… you are the one who chooses. *

One way to settle it in our hearts is to see where the fruit lives. That is…are people turning away from sin because they have “eaten the flesh” (taken the Eucharist) or are they turning away because they have asked the Spirit into their hearts? This is one way to qualify where the Power truly is obtained.

Just a quick note about the “priesthood”…my understanding is that “we are a royal priesthood” in Christ. Something that was revealed again to me last night: Hebrews 6-10 brings to light the new priesthood of the Covenant in His blood.

*looks like someone gave a response a few posts back. But if you don’t/won’t/can’t see the difference in the priesthood of believers, the Highpriest of Jesus alone, and the ministerial priesthood of the Catholic Church… try the debate on the priesthood… Jimmy Akins (a convert) and a former priest whochoose to not believe. *

I appreciate your staunch reverence to what you hold to be true. I enjoy the debate and I pray for all truth to be revealed.
D.

 

[Doreen]

There is a ministerial priesthood as well as the priesthood we all share in Christ. The existence of the ministerial priesthood does not exclude the universal priesthood of all Christians.

I am not familiar with this “ministerial priesthood” —could you show me where that is displayed in the Word? I don’t recall seeing any differentiation in the New Testament.

D.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Doreen:

I am not familiar with this “ministerial priesthood” —could you show me where that is displayed in the Word? I don’t recall seeing any differentiation in the New Testament.

D.

Jam 5:14 Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the presbyters of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.

This is just one example of many. In any event, there is clearly a priesthood of all believers. Nobody is arguing that. However, if there was no special priesthood, James would not instruct that presbyters be called in this situation, because anybody could do it. This shows very clearly that there is a special priesthood for ministering to people, especially because the word “presbyters” is where the Church got the word “priest from.” We could call our priests presbyters, because they mean the same thing. If James were writing today in english, he would write this passage, “Let him call for the priests of the church.”

 

[Doreen]

You sign “a struggling Apologist who counts everything as grace.”

Does your tone in your reply to me count as grace? Because if this, to you, is grace, you truly don’t have a comprehension of the term.

I humbly use the terms “I” in my writings to punctuate the fact that, Yes, this is MY understanding of things. Is that not why we debate? To find the truth and examine our own understanding?

Your responses are harsh and critical, and I don’t think that is conducive to instruction.

In fact, your defensive attitude tells me you have not direct answers, you simply reject my ideas and are not interested in a debate or a discovery.

In your reply, you offer no answers to my questions. You provide insult “duhhh” and sarcasm:

Not understanding is a common problem when one relies only on their own capabilities to read scripture.

If there were truth to what you were saying, and I am willing to consider that there might be (I would not bother discussing it if I didn’t think there may be something to learn.) …You surely do not represent the kind of Christian that I would aspire to join with.

I’m sorry, friend, but you are doing no honor to Christ when you use such methods to make your point. It’s only evidence that you lack a Christ-like nature.

The Disciples spoke from experience. I am simply sharing my experience. I don’t expect that I can understand Scripture without the Holy Spirit. And if you deny the Holy Spirit has such power to speak to the hearts of an individual like me, than you have to explain to me how it is that when I cry out in my heart to God for understand (as I did last night after reading about some of the things on this website…) He will immediately lead me in His Word to answers like Hebrews 6-10.

The message being that the OLD Testament (covenant) has been replaced by the NEW Covenant.

Hebrews 10:11-14
“Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest (CHRIST) had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by ONE SACRIFICE HE HAS MADE PERFECT FOREVER THOSE WHO ARE BEING MADE HOLY.”

We simply cannot add to GRACE. How is the “Sacrifice of going to Mass” not adding to Christ’s ultimate sacrifice? He paid the price once and for all. How can we continue to pay in sacrifices?

We are to offer ourselves as “daily living sacrifices” – which means to submit ourselves to His Lordship daily through prayer, obedience and worship and praise.

In verse 15-18
“The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: 'This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds.”

(Who is he referring to? Who was the author of Hebrews talking to? Was it not “The Hebrews?” Were they not simple folk like you and I who were wanting to understand God?)

I choose to forgive you for your tone and attitude, and I choose to pray you’ll find your gentle nature more effective in such discussions as this. And I thank my God for His wisdom in giving us free will…so that our choices can bring us closer to Him.

God Bless You With His Mighty Spirit and The Fruits Therein!
D.

 

[Unfinished]

Doreen:

We simply cannot add to GRACE. How is the “Sacrifice of going to Mass” not adding to Christ’s ultimate sacrifice? He paid the price once and for all. How can we continue to pay in sacrifices?

We don’t. I’ll let someone with more experience tackle this, but you should know that it is not a “re sacrifice” of Christ. In fact, there is ONLY one sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Doreen:

We simply cannot add to GRACE. How is the “Sacrifice of going to Mass” not adding to Christ’s ultimate sacrifice? He paid the price once and for all. How can we continue to pay in sacrifices?

Let’s begin by pointing out that we can add to Christ’s sacrifice. St. Paul wrote about this in Colossians (1:24): “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church.” This does not mean that Christ’s sacrifice is insufficient. Let me give an example that Rosiland Moss uses. Imagine a mother baking a cake. She has all the ingrediants she needs, the recipee, and she is more than capable of doing all the work to make the cake herself. Her work is sufficient to make the cake. Nevertheless, the mother may let her young child do a little bit of the stirring of the mix, or let her put some of the ingrediants in the bowl. By herself, the child could never ever make the cake. The mother is sufficient to do it. However, the child can still help the mother make it. This is how we are with Christ.

That being said, the Mass is not another sacrifice in addition to the crucifixion. It is the representation of the crucifixion. It is the faithful offering Christ to the Father for their own sins. St. Augustine wrote about how when his mother stands before God in judgement, she is not going to speak about how she did good things, or anything else, but that she is simply going to tell the Father that she is a sinner, but that she offfers Christ’s blood and His body on the cross to the Father. Often, people ask the question, “when you stand before God, if He asked you why He should let you into Heaven, what would you say?” Many Christians of all denominations say that they will simply offer Christ’s blood to the Father. This is whast we do at the Mass. This is why it is called a sacrifice. It is not a sacrifice, but THE sacrifice.

Here in Massachusettes, I like to watch the Bruins hockey games. Sometimes I cannot watch them while they are live. Fortunately, the TV station represents the game at midnight, so I can watch it then. This representation is simply a way for me to have the merits of that game (namely, the enjoyment one gets watching it) to be applied to me at midnight because I was not there to have them applied to me in the past, when it was live. This representation does not mean the players are all going on the ice and playing all over again. In the Mass, we are able to have Christ’s merits applied to us now, and to experience the sacrifice on Calvary now because we were not there then, and Christ no more is sacrificed again then do the players play a second game at midnight.

 

[SolaChristo]

VociMike:

Yes, I realize it perfectly. And I have pointed out that God is everywhere, and that would include temples built by human hands. So what is your point in quoting this scripture? What do you think the phrase means, when it is so clearly false in the literal sense? If God is not in the tabernacles of Catholic Churches then He is not omnipresent. Do you claim that God is not omnipresent?

Excellent, Excellent, Excellent questions.

**Acts 17:24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. **

I bet you cant find a magisterium ruling on this passage in the bible, I bet you cant find a Catechism discussion on it, I bet you cant find the Pope speaking ex cathedra on this one verse. There is no discussion of this verse in my NAB Catholic Study Bible.
So what do you think in means? How would you go about a more complete understanding what God is trying to communicate here?

 

[Nicene]

I bet you cant find a magisterium ruling on this passage in the bible, I bet you cant find a Catechism discussion on it, I bet you cant find the Pope speaking ex cathedra on this one verse. There is no discussion of this verse in my NAB Catholic Study Bible.
So what do you think in means? How would you go about a more complete understanding what God is trying to communicate here?

You lost that bet:

Chancellor: Douay-Rheims Bible

Ver. 24. God…dwelleth not in temples. He who is infinite cannot be confined to space; nor stand in need of what human hands can furnish. Temples are not for God, but for man. It is the latter who derives assistance from them. The same may be observed of all exterior acts of worship. They are serviceable, inasmuch as they proceed from, or powerfully assist, interior devotion, by the impressions which exterior objects leave upon the soul. The reciprocal action of one upon the other, in our present state of existence, is great and inevitable. (Haydock) See chap. vii. above, ver. 48. — God, indeed, dwelleth in the temple, yes, and in the soul of the just man, but his is not confined there, as the idols were to their temples. Hence the prayer of Solomon at the consecration of the temple: if heaven, and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thy immensity, how much less this house, which I have erected? God dwelleth there, then, to receive the prayers and sacrifices of the faithful, but not as though he needed any thing. See ver. 25. — God is not contained in temples; so as to need them for his dwelling, or any other uses, as the heathens imagined. Yet by his omnipresence, he is bother there and every where. (Challoner)

Would you like me to type out the Navarre one as well or the Sacra Pagina or how about the Ignatius?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[SolaChristo]

Nicene:

You truly don’t understand. Jesus wasn’t against any religious practice. In fact he says you should be doing both.

Mt 23:23: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

Unfortunately you have done just as the pharisees, yet going to the other extreme. Now you neglect the other, when you should be doing both.

Jesus was against religiousity. The scribes and pharasees missed their Messiah because they knew not God but a religious system.

With all due respect you made that up. This is the new covenant:

I couldnt make this up read Jer 31:33 and Heb 10:16.

Lk 22:20: And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

Christ is the expiation for sin, he extended this covenant to the gentiles. As he reminds the pharisees they did it for show, to be seen and calls them to truly worship God with all their heart. The pharisees kept people out (especially the outer court where the gentiles were to pray and they set up tables to sell).

Agreed

The church does no such thing, you are invited in any time to worship in fellowship as God intended. All the sacraments were set up by Christ himself, he doesn’t abolish the law, he fulfils it.

Agreed

Those who cannot accept what Jesus teaches are like those in John 6, they walk away because it is too hard for them to accept. The temple of God is within you as Christ is in you and in each other. Christ set up a heirarchy which we see formed in the Gospels, Acts, Thessalonians, Timothy etc. If you choose not to accept what He set up, that is your business.

Agree and disagree

Christ gave us the church because he knew we couldn’t go it alone, we are not orphans. Graces flow through the sacraments for our benefit through his unending mercy. We just have to say yes, and not walk away. Trust in Him. Anything else is pure pride.

Christ gave us the Paraclete, the Helper because He knew that we could not go it alone

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Philthy]

Hi Doreen! :yup:

Doreen:

I read it and understand this:
“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.”
“The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.”
I will decline any more discussion abou the Eucharist, since this is simply a difference of interpretation…which many will disagree with. “The SPIRIT gives life” is the part I choose to take “literally” … you choose to take literally: “if you eat the flesh of the Son of man…” How do we resolve this but to pray and not judge?

You haven’t explained how those two sentences change the interpretation of the passages in John 6! How do you think “The Spirit gives life…” affects the statements Christ made about eating and drinking his flesh? You left it open as if the answer was obvious, but I’m not sure what you’re thinking. If I had to guess I would say you favor a SYMBOLIC interpretation based on His use of the word SPIRIT? Am I correct?

Doreen:

To me, He is simply saying “allow Him to enter in” —allow Him to satisfy you as bread would. Allow Him to be your sustanance.

If this is correct, does it make sense that ALL but the 11 would leave Him over this?
In addition, bread does not fully satisfy (“Man cannot live by bread alone”) and to liken Christ’s satisfaction to that of bread is truly the understatement of all time, no?
Also, we cannot ignore the teachings of the earliest Christians on such an important topic.
I point this out simply to bring us back to the thread: My objections are all reasonable and you and I can be justified in having different interpretations of this Scripture. Our “agreeing to disagree” is nice but irrelevent to what the Truth actually is. So is relegating this passage as “a disputable matter” arbitrarily. So assuming we are both “average Joes” what is our conclusion regarding the OP?
I think it is pretty obvious that much of Scripture can be understood by all who read it. I have no problem with that.
But it also becomes obvious that much of it is also vague and confusing and that unless we are prepared to toss out just about all of the bible for “Love God and love one another” then we have to admit that it seems that something else is needed to truly unify and define what it means to be Christian both in spirit and in Truth.

Doreen:

One way to settle it in our hearts is to see where the fruit lives. That is…are people turning away from sin because they have “eaten the flesh” (taken the Eucharist) or are they turning away because they have asked the Spirit into their hearts? This is one way to qualify where the Power truly is obtained.

I think if you give this proposal a little thought you will see that not only is it impossibly arbitrary, but you have ignored an additional(and the most important) option: looking to those who have asked the Spirit into their hearts AND have “eaten the flesh”. This is a type of bias many have: the “either/or” attitude. But it is not an either/or situation. It is a “both/and” situation. And I think what many Catholics will try to convey is that the Church is presenting the FULL Truth - not just partial Truth. All that Truth that you possess is beautiful and none of it should be abandoned - it should be brought to completion.
Please understand that I personally dont see myself as any better as a Christian than you, and I certainly do not judge you. I know full well how pitiful my Christian life would look if held up to any of the Saints as well as the many Protestant faithful.

Phil

 

[SolaChristo]

Nicene:

You lost that bet:

Chancellor: Douay-Rheims Bible

Ver. 24. God…dwelleth not in temples. He who is infinite cannot be confined to space; nor stand in need of what human hands can furnish. Temples are not for God, but for man. It is the latter who derives assistance from them. The same may be observed of all exterior acts of worship. They are serviceable, inasmuch as they proceed from, or powerfully assist, interior devotion, by the impressions which exterior objects leave upon the soul. The reciprocal action of one upon the other, in our present state of existence, is great and inevitable. (Haydock) See chap. vii. above, ver. 48. — God, indeed, dwelleth in the temple, yes, and in the soul of the just man, but his is not confined there, as the idols were to their temples. Hence the prayer of Solomon at the consecration of the temple: if heaven, and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thy immensity, how much less this house, which I have erected? God dwelleth there, then, to receive the prayers and sacrifices of the faithful, but not as though he needed any thing. See ver. 25. — God is not contained in temples; so as to need them for his dwelling, or any other uses, as the heathens imagined. Yet by his omnipresence, he is bother there and every where. (Challoner)

Would you like me to type out the Navarre one as well or the Sacra Pagina or how about the Ignatius?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

You misunderstood my point. I could have gone to a number of biblical commentaries owning and having access to many. I was looking for an offical RCC ruling.
Your provided commentary does well but is it be anymore authoritative than Jamison, Fausset and Brown?

 

[Doreen]

Lazerlike42:

Jam 5:14 Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the presbyters of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.

This is just one example of many. In any event, there is clearly a priesthood of all believers. Nobody is arguing that. However, if there was no special priesthood, James would not instruct that presbyters be called in this situation, because anybody could do it. This shows very clearly that there is a special priesthood for ministering to people, especially because the word “presbyters” is where the Church got the word “priest from.” We could call our priests presbyters, because they mean the same thing. If James were writing today in english, he would write this passage, “Let him call for the priests of the church.”

Okay, but couldn’t the “presbyters” mean anyone who has the ministry of the Holy Spirit? Couldn’t it mean you or I after we’ve been adopted as Sons? and annointed by the Spirit?

I can see elders of the faith ministering on behalf of those who are still under some bondage…this makes perfect sense to me. That we’d pray over our hurting members.

So it’s becoming apparent that only in the Catholic doctrine, is the Catholic priest elevated. Would that be a fair assumption? I am not saying I don’t agree with it here…I am trying to get to the root of the system that currently endows Catholic priests with authority above others.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Doreen:

Okay, but couldn’t the “presbyters” mean anyone who has the ministry of the Holy Spirit? Couldn’t it mean you or I after we’ve been adopted as Sons? and annointed by the Spirit?

I can see elders of the faith ministering on behalf of those who are still under some bondage…this makes perfect sense to me. That we’d pray over our hurting members.

So it’s becoming apparent that only in the Catholic doctrine, is the Catholic priest elevated. Would that be a fair assumption? I am not saying I don’t agree with it here…I am trying to get to the root of the system that currently endows Catholic priests with authority above others.

Presbyters cannot be simply anyody who has faith or the Spirit. We know this because the Scriptures make it clear on several occasions:

1Ti 5:19 Do not admit a charge against a presbyter except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.

1Pe 5:1 So I exhort the presbyters among you, as a fellow presbyter and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed:

Note that here there are two very important points: 1) Peter writes to exhort the presbyters among them, showing that not all were presbyters, and 2) he says that he is able to do this because he is a fellow presbyter.

2Jo 1:1 The presbyter to the elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth, and not only I, but also all who know the truth,

3Jo 1:1 The presbyter to the beloved Gaius, whom I love in truth.

Here we have John introducing himself as a presbyter in his letters.

What’s more important to understand is that Cathoic doctrine does not elevate priests. In fact, priests are humble servants of Christ and servants of the faithful. Their distinction is that they have specific charisms of the Spirit that the unordained do not. We know that the Spirit gives different gifts to different people. To some tongues, to others knowledge, to others prophesy, etc. The gifts of the ability to consecrate the Eucharist or administer a reconcilliation are the same thing: gifts of the Spirit. These gifts, however, are given specifically to the ordained, whereas the others are not. But priests are not viewed as holier or better or above the lay people.

 

[Philthy]

Doreen:

We simply cannot add to GRACE. How is the “Sacrifice of going to Mass” not adding to Christ’s ultimate sacrifice?

It is not ADDING to it, it is PARTAKING OF it.

Doreen:

He paid the price once and for all. How can we continue to pay in sacrifices?

His sacrifice is eternal and “continues”, but we do not pay in sacrifices , just the one, eternal sacrifice which can be applied over and over - like when you sin and ask for forgiveness, over and over and over and over and over…

Doreen:

We are to offer ourselves as “daily living sacrifices” – which means to submit ourselves to His Lordship daily through prayer, obedience and worship and praise.

Well thats what Mass is, after all: prayer, obedience, worship and praise ( with a little confession of sins and a lot of Scripture for good measure ).Interesting that St Paul uses this term - sacrifice -isnt it? We are to “continue to pay sacrifices” afterall, it appears. In some sense, the “once for all time” sacrifice of Christ has not fully satisfied God’s desire for sacrifice? Is this what we are to understand? Somehow, as Paul says, we are to “make up for what is lacking” in the sacrifice of Christ. Try and fit those two concepts into the “once for all time” concept. Gets a little confusing, doesnt it? I believe this can only be resolved by understanding ourselves - daily - to participate in the “once for all time” sacrifice of Christ. We do that in many ways - Mass is simply another one of them, and a special one at that.

gotta go!

Phil

 

[Nicene]

Jesus was against religiousity. The scribes and pharasees missed their Messiah because they knew not God but a religious system.

So when Jesus said that in Matthew he was wrong, interesting.

With all due respect you made that up. This is the new covenant:

I couldnt make this up read Jer 31:33 and Heb 10:16

.

You forgot the next few verses:

Jer31:34: And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, `Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

Heb10:19: Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, 20: by the new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh,

Christ gave us the Paraclete, the Helper because He knew that we could not go it alone

Christ gave it to the apostles, which we can see in Acts is conferred, not “I accept Jesus and read sacred scripture so I have the Holy Spirit.” Even Simon Magus heard, believed, and was baptized:verse 13. But he definately did not have the Holy Spirit, in fact he wanted the ability to lay on hands and confer it himself by buying it. Christ sent the Paraclete to the church to lead them into all truth. Eliminating the church He set up and saying he meant me personally doesn’t hold up biblically.

*13: Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed.
14: Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Sama’ria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John,
15: who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit;
16: for it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
17: Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.
18: Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money,
19: saying, “Give me also this power, that any one on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” *

I recieved the Holy Spirit at baptism washing away my sin, then had Him conferred upon me again when I was confirmed. Are you saying He wasn’t real?

Christ said he would be with them always, even to the end of time. Can people recieve the Holy Spirit otherwise? Yep, Peter when he goes to the gentiles and is shown the vision, but it is the only time it happenes, the non normative mode to show Peter what to do and convince him of the worthyness of his vision from God.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[mercygate]

Doreen:

The message being that the OLD Testament (covenant) has been replaced by the NEW Covenant.

Hebrews 10:11-14
“Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest (CHRIST) had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by ONE SACRIFICE HE HAS MADE PERFECT FOREVER THOSE WHO ARE BEING MADE HOLY.”

You seem to imply here that the Sacrifice of the Mass is redundant.

The Mass is One with the Sacrifice perfected at Calvary. The Mass does not Sacrifice Jesus again and again and again. Through the Mystery of Christ’s unique Priesthood the priest at the altar breaks through the limits of time and space to enter the eternal mystery of the cross and resurrection.

If you read Hebrews 9 & 10 you will see that the author is delineating the descent of Christian worship from the levitical tradition. He is demonstrating the consummation of the old covenant in the new.

The author is encouraging the “Hebrews” to attend worship despite the persecutions they might expect to face: “notneglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the day drawing near.” (10:25) He indicates that those who ‘neglect to meet together’ have “spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of thecovenantby which he was sanctified.” (10:29). To drive the point home that “meeting together” means celebrating the Eucharist, he uses the words “blood of the covenant.”

The only place where Jesus uses the word “covenant” in his entire ministry is at the Last Supper, referring to the cup of his “blood of the new and everlasting covenant.” This covenant blood is “my blood” – the blood shed at Calvary.

Why do I say that the author refers to the Eucharist? Because when you look at the phrase “considers unclean the covenant-blood by which he was consecrated, and insults the spirit of grace,” no other meaning makes as much sense as that the covenant blood in question is the Precious Blood of the Eucharist. Otherwise, how could it in any way be considered “profane” or “unclean?” No Christian would ever deem the blood spilt at Calvary to be profane, unclean or ordinary. When we receive the Eucharist, we are consecrated by it. The author has identified the Eucharist as the consummation of the Old Covenant.

This passage does not in any sense mean that the Sacrifice of the Mass violates the unique, once for all Sacrifice of Calvary.

That’s my “normal Joe” interpretation of this passage. Does my Holy Spirit beat up your Holy Spirit? Only if my Holy Spirit shares consistency with the constant teaching of the Church if yours does not. In the interpretation of Scripture, the presumption of authority must go to the Church out of which they arose.