Do Catholics believe John 6:53?

[joe370]

A better question would be, when did the CC add the priesthood?

Hey Russ, Ralph, anyone…

If in fact the E.O.C. and the C.C. added the priesthood…added something that Jesus did not intend, then those 2 churches are apostate churches, and if that’s the case then the Holy Spirit failed to “teach” and “guide” Jesus’ One church into ALL truth, for the first 300 years, and if that’s the case, then perhaps Jesus’ One church added something heretical to the Holy Bible that Jesus did not intend, making it an errant and untrustworthy collection of books; Is that a possibility?

If Jesus’ One church to which He established circa 33 AD…to which He is suppose to be the Head and Savior, and guided by the Holy Spirit in perpetuity, added heretical books…added the priesthood, then God failed miserably, to save, teach and guide His one church into all truth, for the first 300 years of Christianity…for 1500 years, after Christianity was finally legalized… until the protestant reformation, when God finally left that One apostate church to save, teach and guide the thousands of P.C.'s we see in the world today, in totally different directions; is that the case?

 

[SHW]

The Greek “elder or presbyter” does NOT mean “priest” in English. It means “overseer”

The Greek word for “priest” is “hiereus” and is used throughout the NT but it is never used to refer to anyone in the Church except Jesus Christ.

"The sacrament of holy orders is conferred in three ranks of clergy: bishops, priests, and deacons.

Bishops (episcopoi) have the care of multiple congregations and appoint, ordain, and discipline priests and deacons. They sometimes appear to be called “evangelists” in the New Testament. Examples of first-century bishops include Timothy and Titus (1 Tim. 5:19–22; 2 Tim. 4:5; Titus 1:5).

Priests (presbuteroi) are also known as “presbyters” or “elders.” In fact, the English term “priest” is simply a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros. They have the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15).

Deacons (diakonoi) are the assistants of the bishops and are responsible for teaching and administering certain Church tasks, such as the distribution of food (Acts 6:1–6)."

Read more about this topic and read some of the Early Church Fathers’ references to this priesthood in their writings at:
catholic.com/library/Bishop_Priest_and_Deacon.asp

The Christian priesthood exists and it has existed for about 2000 years.

Pax,
SHW

 

[cazayoux]

The apostles are dead and whatever power He gave them died with them. If you tell me that this power was passed on, you show me where all this power is today.

why oh why would Jesus give those men the power to forgive sins if he didn’t want it passed on?
it was the resurrected Jesus that gave them this power.
You think this was only a gift to the church he founded for the first couple of decades?
this makes NO sense.

The apostles held an office.
when the apostle was gone, the office remained.
proof for this is in Acts 1.
… not only that, you can see in the King James Version that office was called a ‘bishopric’.
The apostles were BISHOPS.

We see Paul telling Timothy to appoint men to teach and appoint even others to teach.
This is FOUR levels of apostolic succession in one verse!

To see no succession is really to close your eyes to scripture.

c’moooon. Jesus gave men the power to forgive sins.
Ralphy … TELL ME WHY?

michel

 

[PRmerger]

Jesus said, without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin. We are talking about salvation here. The apostles are dead and whatever power He gave them died with them. If you tell me that this power was passed on, you show me where all this power is today.Only God can forgive sin. Ralph

Ralph, can you tell me how the apostles were to “retain” a sin? What does that mean to your interpretation?

 

[joe370]

As guanophore said:

“Priest” is a Latinization that was brought into the English language. The duties of the elder or presbyter in scripture are the same as those of the priest today. A valid question, to which I cannot answer is: why did Jesus’ one church, as early as the 1st century, starting using the word priest in lieu of presbyter?

Russ, the same word used to describe Jesus as a priest (hiereus) is the same word used to call all Christians priests:

Original Word Transliterated Word
iºereu/v Hiereus
Translated Words
priest, priests

The NAS Strong’s Version - 3 Verses

Re 1:6 - [In Context|Read Chapter|Original Greek]
and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father --to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.

Re 5:10 - [In Context|Read Chapter|Original Greek]
have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth ."

Agreed…???

You and I, every Christian, as priests are to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ, as per the bible. We are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of his own…we are to announce the praises of him who called us out of darkness into his wonderful light, as per the bible!

Presbyters do the same thing, except they, starting with the apostles, through the imposition of hands, in perpetuity, are to take bread and give thanks, break it and say: Take, eat; this is Christ’s body which is broken for you. In the same manner the presbyter takes the cup saying, This cup is the new covenant in Christ’s blood; This do, as often as you drink it. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes. What the presbyter does is call on the power of the Holy Spirit, via the words of consecration, to make that Once and for All sacrifice re-presented in the bread, to all at the Mass, at which point we eat His Glorified Flesh. Could God do this if He wanted to???

Jesus said: do this in remembrance of me, to only, the members of His apostolic church; was this to end with them, considering the fact that Paul said: for as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes?

The Lord’s Supper is not a common meal. Those baptized on Pentecost in Jerusalem devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and continued steadfastly … in the breaking of the bread (Acts 2:42). The Lord’s Supper IS distinct from the social meals of verse 46, where the Christians "shared their food with gladness and simplicity of heart.

Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand persons were added that day. They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers.

With what frequency did the Christians in the New Testament, under the authority of the Apostolic church, which is the guidance and surveillance of the Holy Spirit, eat the Lord’s Supper? Luke, in Acts 2:42, says they “continued steadfastly … in the breaking of the bread, and in prayers.” This means, to persist in adherence to a thing; to be intently engaged in; to attend constantly to; unremitting continuance to a thing; to be devoted to.

Justin Martyr (A.D. 110-165, the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, p. 186:

“On the day which is called Sunday, all Christians who dwell either in town or country come together to one place. The memoirs of the Apostles and the writings of the Prophets are read for a certain time, and then the president of the meeting, when the reader has stopped, makes a discourse, in which he instructs and exhorts the people to the imitation of the good deeds which they have just heard. We then rise together, and address prayers to God, and when our prayers are ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president, to the best of his ability, offers up both prayers and thanksgivings, and the people assent, saying ‘amen’, and then the distribution of bread and wine, over which the thanksgivings have been offered, is made to all present, and all partake of it.”

Many more early citations can be provided vis-a-vis the breaking of bread. Well, that’s about it for me; if you still do not believe, that’s cool, we as Christians, are all still brothers ans sisters in Christ; we just belong to different churches, even though Jesus Christ only built ONE. If you respond to any of my posts, I will reciprocate, otherwise, there really isn’t anything more to say!!!

God bless Russ…

 

[NotWorthy]

I did not see any proof that Peter was in Rome, those names are from the Roman catholic church. Ralph

You know, you’re getting rather comical with that comment. Many people have politely asked you to stop using the “Roman Catholic Church” and have politely explained why. You seem to ignore them.

But in answer, St. Ignatius was the bishop of Antioch in Syria. Why would he want to be subject to Rome if he was autonomous? Especially while he was on the way to his death at the hands of… (drumroll, please)… Rome!

St. Clement was the bishop of Rome, you are correct. But his letter came in response to the Church of Corinth, what should have been an autonomous city as well, who had appealed to … (drumroll, please)… Rome, to solve their problem with non-Apostolic appointed priests.

 

[NotWorthy]

Only God can establish a priesthood because only God has the authority to determine how He can be approached. God detailed the OT priesthood over many LARGE books of the OT consisting of huge portions of scripture that detail every offering, who can be a priest, how to construct the tabernacle, etc. etc. etc.

God gave tremendous detail concerning the OT priesthood and then He fails to even mention “priest” in the NT? There is not ONE reference in the NT to any new earthly priesthood and if God did not establish the priesthood then it is an illegitimate priesthood.

So… you respond to this, but yet you ignore a question I’ve asked at least 7 times?

In response to the priesthood, however, would you kindly answer the numerous “priestly” functions I’ve mentioned? It seems the early Church understood it. Even the first Reformation churches understood it.

It seems only the churches that sprout further away from the vine are the ones that are blind to the fact that the priesthood is ordained straight from Jesus himself.

 

[joe370]

PRmerger said:

Can you tell me how the apostles were to “retain” a sin? What does that mean to your interpretation?

That’s a good question!!! In general, as per the Bible, we are to “confess are sins…” do you???

The whole idea of confession is to get right with God before you receive communion; that’s it!!! If you don’t believe in the true presence… the Sacrament of reconciliation is pointless. We as Catholics, as all Catholics believed for the first 300 years of Christianity --only those were public confessions… --believe confessing our sins to a sinful, fallible man, who also confesses his sins to other sinful, fallible priests, is crucial, if we want to be part of Jesus’ One church and receive His one Body.

Remember, the priest possess zero power to forgive sins…to baptize…to change the bread into Jesus’ Mystical Flesh…this is all done by the Holy Spirit, or would this be impossible for the H.S.? However they are properly catechized, as the apostles were, to recognize a sin that the H.S. would remit or retain, thus admitting the penitent into Jesus’ one church or restricting the penitent from entering into Jesus’ one church, which probably never happens. I mean if a person confessed that he was going to murder someone in 3 days, and he wanted preemptive absolution so he could in good conscience enter into Jesus’ One Mystical Body, the Church, I doubt the priest would say:

“On the authority of Jesus Christ, committed unto me, I say to you: Your sins are forgiven, in the Name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit… Amen.”

Hey Ralph…

So, when Jesus said: even so send I you…this was to end after the last apostle died? So, you do believe that the apostles who were all sinful fallible men were granted authority via the Holy Spirit, to forgive and remit sins??? You would have confessed your sins to one of the apostles?

As I said before: the apostles possessed zero power to do anything on their own, so why would you confess your sins to mere sinful fallible men? The miracles…the speaking in tongues, were necessary to draw people into Jesus’ One church, and I’m sure, upon seeing these miracles, people had no problem confessing their sins to Jesus’ apostolic church. Why did the Sacrament Reconciliation continue for the first 300 years, long before the bible was canonized; was this too another heretical doctrine taught by the Holy Spirit, starting on Pentecost, to Jesus’ one church?

As per the Bible, faith, upon the end of the apostolic age, in Christ via His chosen ambassadors/teachers which comprised/comprise Jesus’ One church, was/is all that is required; miracles were to cease, as per the bible. Where does the bible say:

Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained, UNTIL THE 12 OF YOU DIE???

What was the point of telling the apostles they could now remit or retain sins, if it was to have a shelf life of about 50 years?

 

[NotWorthy]

Nothing about this word “Do” has anything to do with offering sacrifice:

1. to make
   a) with the names of things made, to produce, construct, form, fashion, etc.
   b) to be the authors of, the cause
   c) to make ready, to prepare
   d) to produce, bear, shoot forth
   e) to acquire, to provide a thing for one’s self
   f) to make a thing out of something
   g) to (make i.e.) render one anything
2. to (make i.e.) constitute or appoint one anything, to appoint or ordain one that
3. to (make i.e.) declare one anything
   h) to put one forth, to lead him out
   i) to make one do something
4. cause one to
   j) to be the authors of a thing (to cause, bring about)
5. to do
   a) to act rightly, do well
6. to carry out, to execute
   b) to do a thing unto one
7. to do to one
   c) with designation of time: to pass, spend
   d) to celebrate, keep
8. to make ready, and so at the same time to institute, the celebration of the passover
   e) to perform: to a promise

Russ, for someone who borrows their name from the Bereans, you sure to live up to your name. The Bereans checked the word of the Apostles with Scripture.

You take a translation, “Do”, and act like that is what Jesus said, as if He looked it up in the dictionary before He said it. You didn’t read a word I posted.

The term “poeien” is used in the Greek OT only in sacrificial terms - not “to make”, or “produce”, or “author”, or “acquire”.

You disappoint me, Russ.

 

[NotWorthy]

NotWorthy,

You can make the Bible say whatever you want it to say if you try hard enough but the fact remains that there is no office of priest in the NT in spite of the many places that it SHOULD be listed like:

… God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues.

I notice he doesn’t say deacons either. Are there deacons in the Church, Russ? Did God appoint them, or did the Church under His authority appoint them?

In the meantime, you don’t answer the question.

 

[joe370]

You know, you’re getting rather comical with that comment. Many people have politely asked you to stop using the “Roman Catholic Church” and have politely explained why. You seem to ignore them.

But in answer, St. Ignatius was the bishop of Antioch in Syria. Why would he want to be subject to Rome if he was autonomous? Especially while he was on the way to his death at the hands of… (drumroll, please)… Rome!

St. Clement was the bishop of Rome, you are correct. But his letter came in response to the Church of Corinth, what should have been an autonomous city as well, who had appealed to … (drumroll, please)… Rome, to solve their problem with non-Apostolic appointed priests.

---

Excellent questions!!! Ralph more citations can be provided!!!

 

[NotWorthy]

The Greek “elder or presbyter” does NOT mean “priest” in English. It means “overseer”

The Greek word for “priest” is “hiereus” and is used throughout the NT but it is never used to refer to anyone in the Church except Jesus Christ.

And we see people given the task of doing things that only a priest in the OT can do.

 

[NotWorthy]

Jesus said, without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin. We are talking about salvation here. The apostles are dead and whatever power He gave them died with them. If you tell me that this power was passed on, you show me where all this power is today.Only God can forgive sin. Ralph

Where does Scripture say this?

Christ commissioned the Apostles to make disciples of all the nations. Did the Apostles do this? Or did people who they passed on their authority finish this task? I’ll give you a hint. The Catholic Church is in all the nations of the world, my brother!

 

[joe370]

I was perusing the thread…

These Jews were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all willingness and examined the scriptures daily to determine whether these things were so. Many of them became believers, as did not a few of the influential Greek women and men. But when the Jews of Thessalonica learned that the word of God had now been proclaimed by Paul in Beroea also, they came there too to cause a commotion and stir up the crowds.

When they received the word, they received the traditions that Paul taught orally, or by letter; when they examined the scriptures, they were examining what we call the O.T., or did they have a written version of our Bible??? If so, why the need for Paul and the elders to defer to the church in Jerusalem (Peter and James) to settle the dispute?

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by BereanRuss View Post
The Greek “elder or presbyter” does NOT mean “priest” in English. It means “overseer”

The Greek word for “priest” is “hiereus” and is used throughout the NT but it is never used to refer to anyone in the Church except Jesus Christ.

Agreed!!! In the C.C. who is suppose to do as Jesus said, when He said: do this in remembrance of me; does the bishop qualify?

 

[guanophore]

We are talking about salvation here. The apostles are dead and whatever power He gave them died with them. If you tell me that this power was passed on, you show me where all this power is today.Only God can forgive sin. Ralph

Indeed!

If God is not able to pass power on, then Joshua has no authority. Elisha has no authority. King David has no authority. Jesus has no authority, and there fore, none of the Apostles. If God;s annointing is null at death,then Matthias is not really an Apostle.

, you show me where all this power is today.Only God can forgive sin. Ralph

do you realize that you are siding with those how opposed Christ?

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by ralphy View Post
**Jesus said, without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin. We are talking about salvation here. The apostles are dead and whatever power He gave them died with them. If you tell me that this power was passed on, you show me where all this power is today.Only God can forgive sin. **

Ralph

But you will receive power when the holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.

Were they given power to teach…to codify/canonize your bible?

 

[NotWorthy]

Originally Posted by ralphy View Post
**Jesus said, without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin. We are talking about salvation here. The apostles are dead and whatever power He gave them died with them. If you tell me that this power was passed on, you show me where all this power is today.Only God can forgive sin. **

Ralph

But you will receive power when the holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.

Were they given power to teach…to codify/canonize your bible?

Also, notice that they “laid their hands on” Barnabus, later on. And he had full authority to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them and teaching them all that He had commanded” the Apostles.

Also, notice that St. Paul had done this to Timothy. Why? “So that you can teach others, who will teach others…”.

That’s 4 generations of Apostolic Succession.

 

[cazayoux]

Russ, for someone who borrows their name from the Bereans, you sure to live up to your name. The Bereans checked the word of the Apostles with Scripture.

You take a translation, “Do”, and act like that is what Jesus said, as if He looked it up in the dictionary before He said it. You didn’t read a word I posted.

The term “poeien” is used in the Greek OT only in sacrificial terms - not “to make”, or “produce”, or “author”, or “acquire”.

You disappoint me, Russ.

It’s worth noting that the Berean’s did not know scripture well.
Why did they have to search it? Apparently they didn’t already KNOW it?

michel

 

[BereanRuss]

Baptized Christians are all in one way or another part of the Catholic Church or Body of Christ. Some are in an imperfect communion with the Church…

Now you are back to saying that Jesus’ words mean nothing when He says, “Amen, amen…” When do we take Jesus’ words literally? Only after three “amens”?

You cannot have it both ways Brad. Either He is speaking literally and the priest and regular communion are required for salvation or He is speaking figuratively and the priesthood is the invention of man.

I don’t have to reconcile Jn 3:16 to 6:53 because I don’t think there is a contradiction. John certainly didn’t say or imply that the belief alone is what saves someone, since I just stated, even the demons believe…

Again, is communion required or not?. Are the words of Jesus reliable or not?