Do Catholics believe John 6:53?

[BereanRuss]

Christ established the priesthood not the apostles.

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

Seems that Paul is not interested in performing hs priestly duties.

 

[NotWorthy]

No, again, for the Nth time, the Greek word for priest is “hiereus”. The word 'presbuteros’ means “overseer”.

The word “hiereus” is NEVER used of any leader in the NT church except Jesus ALONE.

So, the Webster’s dictionary is able to trump the Catholic use of the Old Testament to render “Do this in memory of me” as “produce” or “make”.

But the Webster’s dictionary isn’t valid when determining the entymology of the word “priest”.

That’s a nice double-standard you’re using there, BR.

 

[Nita]

Why do you seek to read into the Bible what is not there (the Catholic priesthood) and belittle what clearly is there (the high priesthood of Jesus Christ)?

There is only one high priest in the Catholic Church and that is Jesus Christ. (Those who are ordained in our Church are priests; they never become “high priests”.)

It follows the OT pattern of one high priest but multiple priests that assist him. (In Hebrews Paul goes into why the OT high priest needed to be replaced, but in the NT Jesus is our high priest forever.)

 

[BereanRuss]

Are you suggesting that sin no longer exists or what exactly are you suggesting?

For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. [Rom 8:38, 39]

 

[jmcrae]

Or another way to say it is that Jesus cannot be trusted even when He says, “Amen, amen…” So we will believe whatever we feel like believing regardless of what the Bible of Jesus or anyone else says.

No, we are certainly not free to believe whatever we feel like. Is that what you think Catholics do?

You should read The Sources of Catholic Dogma, by Denzinger. It contains the text of every Ecumenical Council since the time of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, and shows in detail where each and every article of the Catechism comes from, and how it traces back to the teachings and example of the Apostles.

You might find it interesting.

 

[joe370]

God is the author of the Bible. Is it not enough you that He covers this subject thoroughly in one book instead of many?

Why do you seek to read into the Bible what is not there (the Catholic priesthood) and belittle what clearly is there (the high priesthood of Jesus Christ)?

Russ, when did I belittle…? Why would I belittle the Holy Bible given to all by the One Holy C.C. to which I belong? If you don’t want to believe in the priesthood, then don’t; I’m cool with that, as everyone else here at CAF is, that I’m sure of; to each his/her own! Free will… Russ, why do you commemorate Christ’s birth and death once a year, when it clearly is NOT in your bible? Why do you seek to read into the Bible what is not there!!! This is a tradition started by the C.C.!!! Jesus told His One CHURCH TO DO JUST ONE THING IN REMEMBRANCE OF HIM; does your church do this…? I am in a rush so I ask again: would you be OK with the priesthood if she used the word presbyter instead???

God bless my friend…

 

[bradwill911]

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

Seems that Paul is not interested in performing hs priestly duties.

Let’s see here:

Paul often assumed that he was writing to those who were baptized:

Romans 6:3: Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

Colossians 2:12: and you were buried with him in baptism…

Seems that he approved of baptism, and was even baptized as we read in Acts 9:18. Paul’s followers were always baptized, but not many were baptized by him. So far we can see that he was in favor of baptism, but didn’t baptize many. Why?

1 Cor 1:12-15: “What I mean is that each one of you says, ‘I belong to Paul,’ or ‘I belong to Apollos,’ or ‘I belong to Cephas,’ or ‘I belong to Christ.’ Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius; lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name.”

Seems less like Paul was uninterested in performing his duties and more like Paul was trying to prevent becoming a cult of personality. As 1 Cor 1:31 states, “Therefore, as it is written, ‘Let him who boasts, boast of the Lord.’” I’m thinking he was concerned with becoming a new golden calf.

Here’s a hypothetical, a bishop and a team of priests went to an unknown territory to evangelize the population. The bishop would proclaim the Gospel while the priests were baptizing the converted. Would the bishop be neglecting his priestly duties?

 

[PRmerger]

Or in other words, the words of Jesus have absolutely no meaning whatsoever to the Catholic. We only listen to the Pope. Perhaps if Jesus had said, “Amen, I really mean it, amen again and one more time, amen…” then we might consider taking Him at His word.

In other words, Russ, then you deny the kingship of Christ, the high priest.

You keep talking about taking Him at His Word, which is the Word given to you by the CC, yet you deny the very meaning of His Word!

You claim that the Bible is the foundation of truth, yet deny that the Bible says it is the CHURCH which is the pillar and foundation of truth.

 

[BereanRuss]

Jesus told His One CHURCH TO DO JUST ONE THING IN REMEMBRANCE OF HIM; does your church do this…? I am in a rush so I ask again: would you be OK with the priesthood if she used the word presbyter instead

Jesus told those who believed in Him to remember Him. Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord is in His church.

I answered your question (priesthood / presbyter) already.

 

[PRmerger]

Russ, could you please answer this question I asked earlier?

Now, what do we do when 2 different people disagree about what Scripture says? Are you an infallible interpreter of Scripture?

 

[PRmerger]

And also Ralph (and now Russ, too),

Could you please answer this question I’ve asked multiple times:

What is your interpretation for how apostles were to “retain” sins?

 

[BereanRuss]

Now, what do we do when 2 different people disagree about what Scripture says? Are you an infallible interpreter of Scripture?

My salvation is not dependant upon perfect understanding of the Bible. My salvation is dependant upon the finished work of Jesus on the cross.

Differences in understanding of the word of God pose no problem unless those interpretations deny basic truths like the person and work of Christ or salvation by grace through faith, etc.

 

[BereanRuss]

And also Ralph (and now Russ, too),

Could you please answer this question I’ve asked multiple times:

What is your interpretation for how apostles were to “retain” sins?

I already responded to this question. I said,

And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?–as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.

 

[PRmerger]

Differences in understanding of the word of God pose no problem unless those interpretations deny basic truths like the person and work of Christ or salvation by grace through faith, etc.

Can you give me what Scripture verses tell what are the basic truths and what are ok to disagree on?

 

[PRmerger]

I already responded to this question. I said,

And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?–as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.

I’m sorry…I don’t understand what this means. Could you please explain?

 

[BereanRuss]

You claim that the Bible is the foundation of truth, yet deny that the Bible says it is the CHURCH which is the pillar and foundation of truth.

I do not deny that the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. The church is made of those who are born again of the Holy Spirit. They contain the truth in earthen vessels not in a catechism.

 

[PRmerger]

They contain the truth in earthen vessels not in a catechism.

I don’t know what this means, either. I’m sorry my ignorance.

How does one contain truth in an earthen vessel?

 

[jmcrae]

I do not deny that the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. The church is made of those who are born again of the Holy Spirit. They contain the truth in earthen vessels not in a catechism.

People can certainly know the truth, but how does the unbeliever discern which Christians are speaking only the truth and nothing that is false (the true Church), from those who have a mixture of true and false beliefs (heretics)?

 

[BereanRuss]

I’m sorry…I don’t understand what this means. Could you please explain?

And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?–as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.

This is an example of how the Apostles “retain” sins.

Do you have a better example from the Bible?

 

[BereanRuss]

How does one contain truth in an earthen vessel?

…we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellence of the power may be of God and not of us. [2 Cor 4:7]

If the truth of God is contained in a catechism, them man is glorified but if God uses the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, then God is glorified.