Faith alone or not?

[paul_c]

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
Do you deny that Jesus set up certain men to preach to the world in his place? Do you not recognize that he named twelve Apostles? And that he sent these men out to do the works that he was doing, even before he had been sacrificed on the cross?

Which was exactly my point when you said that God didn’t need a mediator between him and man. He doesn’t need one, but he has chosen to use men as tools to spread the Gospel and administer his sacraments. (i.e the priesthood)

The Apostles were given power to heal and cast out demons and other signs and wondrs to validate that the authority was from heaven.

Good, we are in agreement.

Succession is another story all together; their is not one example of this being mentioned

This is too easy. Have you never read Acts 1:
15 During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place). He said,
16 “My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus.
17 He was numbered among us and was allotted a share in this ministry.
18 He bought a parcel of land with the wages of his iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his insides spilled out. 7
19 This became known to everyone who lived in Jerusalem, so that the parcel of land was called in their language ‘Akeldama,’ that is, Field of Blood.
20 For it is written in the Book of Psalms: ‘Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.’ And: ‘May another take his office.’
21 Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us,
22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection.”
23 So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias.
24 Then they prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen
25 to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.”
26 Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.

and Scripture warns about paying attention to geaneologies.

What does this have to do with the Catholic priesthood? Its not hereditary…

Just as Catholics claim that the power to forgive sins was given to the apostles in spite of the fact that God alone is able to forgive sins, which is why you can’t find a verse where any apostle said you sins are forgiven by my power.

I thought you studied the bible… Have you never read what Jesus said to the Apostles after his resurrection? (John 20: 21-23):

21 (Jesus) said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit.
23 Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retaine

As for the Saints saying " your sins are forgiven by “their” power. Why would they say that. Sins are forgiven through Jesus’ power working through our priest. When a priest absolves of our sins, he prays over us:

God, the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of His Son
has reconciled the world to Himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us
for the forgiveness of sins;
Through the ministry of the Church may God give you pardon and peace,
and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

The reason you won’t find that is because it is a fallact of interpretation of certain passages.

But actually, I did find it. didn’t I?

Forgiveness comes from accepting the gospel by faith in Christ as a propitiation or substitute on behalf of the true believer

It takes more than that. It requires contrition, confession, repentance and penance.

 

[Cat_Herder]

It can’t be present. It happened “ONCE” (historically) for all time. And then an everlasting change took place. He resurrected to NEW life with a glorified body, never to die again.

You say Jesus cannot be physically present on earth because He has risen. That is a non sequitur. The Bible is quite clear that when we rise from the dead, we will do so corporally, with indestructible bodies just like Christ’s.

Hence, Scripture says we do it “in remembrance” of Him - according to FAITH.

The word “rememberance” is used elsewhere in Scripture to denote a sacrificial rite.

[BIBLEDRB]Numbers 10:10[/BIBLEDRB]

So, because it says “in remembrance,” the Levitical priesthood was a sham and the Temple offerings were just symbolic? I don’t think so.

I do agree that the Eucharist is celebrated in faith, but I part ways with you in that you give faith only to a modern English definition of the word “remembrance” and not the preceding phrase, “This is My Body.”

Whoa yourself pardner. Have you ever seen the Lord physically?

Yes.

Have you seen the imprint of the nails on his hands? Have you put your hand into His side (Jn. 20:25)?

He did not show me the wounds. I don’t need to see them to believe.

The truth is He is not with us physically. Physically He can be in only one place at a time - according to His humanity. He is omnipresent according to His Deity, not His humanity.

That may have been true when Jesus was in His natural body. But Scripture is quite clear that the glorified body is capable of supernatural acts.

And in His humanity His body is GLORIFIED, not longer subject to death. It LIVES forevermore. His resurrected, indestructible life is the basis for His High Priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 7:15-17).

Correct.

Your “eucharist” would disqualify Him. One can be guilty of what it represents. “Do this in remembrance of Me.”

However, this statement does not follow from the above and is also a non sequitur. I think you are confused as to what happens at the Mass. Jesus does not die again. Calvary is made present to the partakers but it is not repeated.

CCC 1104 Christian liturgy not only recalls the events that saved us but actualizes them, makes them present. The Paschal mystery of Christ is celebrated, not repeated. It is the celebrations that are repeated, and in each celebration there is an outpouring of the Holy Spirit that makes the unique mystery present.

 

[Cat_Herder]

There were no “priests” (Gk. hiereus) ordained by Christ. He chose Apostles (Gk. apostolos) for the foundation of His church/temple, but no “hiereus” (priests). Elders (Gk. presbuteros/episkopos) were appointed in each local church assembly by men, but no hiereus (priests). It’s as simple as that, my friend.He simply had to go to the Scriptures. There were no “hiereus” ordained by Christ or appointed by men in the church. Scripture speaks only of the general priesthood of all believers.

Just because the presbuteros are not called hiereus doesn’t mean they have no sacrifice.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 10:18-21[/BIBLEDRB]

This is because every Christian is a hiereus, including the presbuteros, but only the presbuteros received authority to offer the Eucharist.

I have already explained this thoroughly.

 

[twb1621]

There were no “priests” (Gk. hiereus) ordained by Christ. He chose Apostles (Gk. apostolos) for the foundation of His church/temple, but no “hiereus” (priests). Elders (Gk. presbuteros/episkopos) were appointed in each local church assembly by men, but no hiereus (priests). It’s as simple as that, my friend.He simply had to go to the Scriptures. There were no “hiereus” ordained by Christ or appointed by men in the church. Scripture speaks only of the general priesthood of all believers.

First, what is your understanding of the meaning of “priest”. Second, The hierarchy of the Church and the positions of those in service to her were initially established by the apostles and their immediate successors, the Apostolic Fathers. As the Church grew, so did the requirement for growth in that hierarchy, thats only common sense. This was before the written Gospels which were in fact written by members of the Church, their disciples, and identified by the Early Church Fathers and most directly authenticated early on by the Apostolic Fathers who did not learn from the written word, but directly from the Apostles Teachings and knew full well the correct understanding of the Faith better than anyone. The use of the term priest was first used by them. now you can deny their validity but in doing so you deny the validity of the contents of the Bible itself as these are some of the very men we recognize as guided by the Holy Spirit in determining the truly Inspired Word of God to bring about the Holy Bible you yourself are referring to (regardless of your interpretation).

I realize you totally passed over my more in depth post to you in this regard, but your argument is groundless and the explanation of the Church’s teaching regarding all of our roles in “the priethood” as you speak of it is defined in thos previous posts I present you quoted from the CCC. Christ formed His own Church and no where in scripture does it say the order of Melchisedech was vanquished, but rather that Jesus became the High Priest. He further commanded His Apostles through the establishment of His Church to continue His Teachings in His rememberence. Bishps were ordained, Deacons were ordained, Priests were ordained, but the body of faithful were never ordained, and although we are referred to as priests, it is not ordained priests and Scripture clearly points out we are to take the Teachings of the Apostles as True and they initiated their succession with the same transferred authority.

what do you understand the meaning of “priest” to be and how does it take anything away from anyone of us in the sense it refers to us? Do you think you have a better understanding of what the writings of the Gospel actually intend in meaning moreso than the Apostolic Fathers? unless you do, read their writings and compare them to Scripture and then to your beliefs and you will find your understanding is greatly misguided. I say this sincerely.

Peace

 

[Tomster]

UPDATE

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=507901

posts 1 thru 7 :knight2:

 

[twb1621]

UPDATE

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=507901

posts 1 thru 7 :knight2:

brief, direct and understandable… what more could one ask for…

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Faith alone in Christ alone is so strongly implicit that it doesn’t have to use the word alone and in my opinion because it is so implicit in so many places that it is explicit in my opinion.

If you think it is so implicitly explicit (if that means anything to anybody), why is just your opinion? We can make the same argument but it would lead us nowhere. If it does anything, it would make us look ridiculous.

We too have “faith alone in Christ alone”… Whatever that means. Actually, we have SO much faith in Him alone that we believe Him when He said to His Apostles John 15:18-19… In addition to this, we believe Him and Sacred Tradition about the Church as His Mystical Body. We have so much faith that we believe He has the authority to give authority. God can pass His authority on to whomever He wishes and that was His Apostles.

When He said, “Do this in remembrance of me” or “Do this in memory of me”, He instituted the Eucharistic Miracle for eternity through the temporal realm. It is not just a symbol. “This is my body” cannot get anymore more explicit.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Scripture does not mention anything about a need for a visable head, since the Christian walks by faith and not by sight and Jesus is the head of the church and vicar means substitue just as veneration means worship.

(Latin vicarius, from vice, “instead of”); “instead of” is a substitute and that was taken from NewAdvent.

**Vicar of Christ
(Latin Vicarius Christi).

A title of the pope implying his supreme and universal primacy, both of honour and of jurisdiction, over the Church of Christ.** - NewAdvent

Do not “” me if you are going to say false things about our Church that are superficially denigrating. I may not win against you and your Bible-verse-slinging proclivities but I will win a sarcasm race.

As always, thanks for misunderstanding the pope. He is not a substitute. The Church sees him (little “h”) as a visible representative of Him (big “h”). Why is it that YOU insist that you know what WE see OUR doctrine as? Even worse, why do YOU insist that YOU know more than CATHOLICS about CATHOLIC doctrine? I do not go saying you see your local preacher as Christ nor do any of us. And why will you not repond fully to any of my posts?

THE POPE IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE OF CHRIST!

The Church has never said that. I could care less what the Latin word literally means. Sometimes, the literal translation of the closest Latin word is not literally what the word (whose root is Latin) means. Even if it is, your conclusion about him being in the place of Christ is false and our idea is even more suitable. A substitute teacher is supposed to teach what the head teacher teaches (say that 3 times fast). In this case of the pope, this substitute teacher (guarded from error by the Holy Spirit) is supposed to teach what the Head Teacher teaches. In both cases of the school and Church substitutes, they are both representatives of the real deal. They do not intend on BEING that person, only to represent them. Now, the scenarios are a little different but the idea is the same.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

You all sure make a lot of false claims about what I have said, Perhaps you just bunch everyone together that is not a professing Catholic; I don’t know, but it getting old already and does nothing for any dialogue.

The only claim I am making is that you misunderstand us and our doctrine (the latter especially). Moondweller himself has said “You’re taught…” and you certainly make the same subtlies by saying, “I believe in Christ only and not a church” or something similar. I only bunch up people that can be bunched up into categories. Both of you (and many Protestants) clump us in an abyss called “church believers” and yourselves into “Christ believers” while making it subtle that we are only part of the former group and not the latter. I clump you both into a group called “people who think they understand other people’s doctrine better than those other people.” Moondweller said something similar to this, “I have studied your religion and probably know more about it than you do” to a Catholic. That may be so but studying is completely different from experiencing. Being an ex-Catholic is even worse for those who make that assertion that they have experienced it. It is the same as this: only studying Christ makes no difference on anybody but experiencing Him personally makes the experiencer understand Him. Even an atheist can know ABOUT Christ but they certainly cannot know Him.

Anyway, your rigorous studies of our teachings are not very fruitful. You all are VERY mistaken on the Church and its teaching. We lift our hearts to the Lord. You all lift your minds to make insults to the Church. We give Him thanks and praise. You all pray that Catholics can again become Christians. We wrote the Bible and housed it in the Church. You all took the Bible, subtracted from it and used it against the Church. We call ourselves all sinners. You all call yourselves saints. We call Church the pillar and bulwark of the Truth. You all call it the Whore of Babylon. We believe (transcending all knowledge) the Pope is our Holy Father. You call him the Anti-Christ. We say Mary is Mother of God. You all say she is only the Mother of Jesus, the Man. We say He was literal in meaning, “This is my Body.” You all say He meant to add, “Wait! Do not leave! I only meant it symbolically!” We submit to the authority given as a gift from God to the Church. You submit to the authority of your local preacher. We say, “If God can create a universe through a Word, He can certainly do anything.” You all limit His omnipotence to miracles of seeing Jesus in a grilled cheese sandwich. We say God gave the Church authority. You all say He cannot do that. We say God can make eternal Jesus’ Death, Resurrection and Ascension in the miracle of the Eucharist at the Mass. You all say He cannot do that. We believe God can use the nature He created as useful to the attainment of holiness within His people. You all say that His nature can do nothing for us. We read out of the Bible. You all read into it. We say God and His Friends (Mary, Queen of Heaven, angels, saints and martyrs) are there for us and with us. You all say God locks up the inhabitants of heaven in a vault until the Second Coming. We pray for the salvation of all people, Christians and non-Christians alike. You all pray that all non-Christians (including Catholics) go to hell.

It is not fun when I critique an entire population off of what I have observed (directly and indirectly) in my Protestant brethren and what other Catholics claim to have observed or read. I do not think all this is true for most of them. I have just observed it as a former atheist and notice it even more as a Catholic, obviously. The difference between me and you is that I know I am wrong with these statements and you think you are right with yours. We do trust in God alone which is contrary to your cross-analysis of us. We only trust the Church because God in the Flesh gave the authority to the Church. I am a Christian. I know you are too. We believe more than you think and more than you do that Christ’s one-time Redemption of His flock is complete. We use “rituals” (whatever your idea of that may be), sacramentals, etc… to help us in our journey to be with the Source of Life, Truth and Love. You cannot condemn us for believing something that we believe (transcending facts and figures) is Truth. WE, however, can condemn those who think they know more about us than us.

Look at the arguments of the thread. We are defending our position AND we are defending against the assertion that YOU know more about US than US. That is absurd. We should not be doing that. Sometimes YOU actually TELL US what we believe. Now, with that said, if any Catholic insisted that you believe something when it is not true, shame on them. If I did that, I certainly did not mean that. I apologize. We know more about us and our doctrine than you and you know more about yours than us. It is one thing to give us arguments attacking our position. It is quite another thing to tell us what we believe and then attack it. We still have the upper hand though. We defending on the premise that we are right and you are attacking on the premise that we are wrong. Arguments usually work for the former. In this case, we have proved our point and you have proved your point but ONLY from the standpoint of what you THINK we believe, which is wrong… needless to say.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Amen; how hard is that to see in Scripture and comprehend? Beyond me.

This does nothing for anybody. Are you calling us dumb when we have given examples of WHY we believe certain things? In any case, refer to John 15:18-19. This is Jesus and the Church and you certainly contribute to this prophecy.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Do you have a degree in semantics?

Do you have a degree in Catholic theology and philosophy?

The Catholic Church has many CATHOLIC theologians with degrees in CATHOLIC THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY! They probably know the Bible backwards every other verse! (I realize it is exaggeration but my point is valid.) Certainly, they know more than you about Catholic dogma. These are who we learn from (in addition to actually experiencing the graces of being Catholic).

Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope)
Fulton Sheen
Peter Kreeft
Hans von Balthasar
Edith Stein (personal favorite saint) and the Carmelites (personal favorites)
G.K. Chesterton
St. Thomas Aquinas
St. Anselm of Canterbury
John Salza
(not to mention St. Peter and St. Paul)

This is only a mere whisper of the names we have in our literature in the Church. We also have all the saints writings but that is irrelevant to my point about degrees. I am not claiming that they speak Truth 100%. In fact, Aquinas and Anselm were not always in agreement on certain topics (that is, outside of Catholic theology). Balthasar has claimed to not be succint with Ratzinger on occasion (again, outside of thoelogy). I am sure there are many other examples. Right now, I am not claiming we are right (although I certainly believe it); rather, I am claiming that we know more about us and our doctrine than you.

In any case, I know a whole lot of semantics and about semantics. Whether or not I know more than you is certainly a moot point, but do not be condescending and claim that you know more about topic than us. That would be like me claiming to be better than EVERY musician without a degree in music which is a false and very prideful claim. I will let you discover why the assertion that I should be is just false.

Anyway, James 2:24 says this: You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith only.

Why is that not clear evidence? You may say that this is only for other humans to see the faith of yours. Norman Geisler said this, “James is talking about justification before humans.” BUT that would clearly go against Jesus teaching in Matthew chapter 6:

1 "(But) take care not to perform righteous deeds in order that people may see them; otherwise, you will have no recompense from your heavenly Father.
2
When you give alms, do not blow a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets to win the praise of others. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward.
3
But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right is doing,
4
so that your almsgiving may be secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.
5
"When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward.
6
But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.
7
In praying, do not babble like the pagans, who think that they will be heard because of their many words.
8
Do not be like them. Your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

16
"When you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites. They neglect their appearance, so that they may appear to others to be fasting. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward.
17
But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face,
18
so that you may not appear to be fasting, except to your Father who is hidden. And your Father who sees what is hidden will repay you

I have no degree in apologetics but I just came up with this by myself! I am happy that I know the Bible more than I think. Norman Geisler goes against Jesus Christ. This is why we believe faith and works. Do you believe us now?

By the way, why do sites like www.christiananswers.com not include Catholics? Can someone please answer this? The fact that non-Catholic Christians attempt to refute Catholicism proves that they think Catholics are not part of Christianity. It would be different if it said “Baptistanswers” or “Methodistanswers” but it says "Christiananswers."

 

[GreggAlvarez]

You ask this because in Catholicism there’s no concept of “saved, which includes the forgiveness of all sins.”

You see. This is what I have talking about. The Church is FOR souls to be SAVED! Right now, I am not talking about its Truth and am not opening it up for discussion because it will leave you in a trap; I am just talking about the FACT that there is a concept of saved in Catholicism. The forgiveness of sins is certainly a part of it. Stop telling us what we believe and do not believe. I am laughing because it is getting ridiculous.

Anyway, “Believe in Jesus Christ and you will be saved” says St. Paul to the Romans. This includes believing in His words (faith and works), believing in the Word of God which is Himself (faith and works), “putting on Christ” (St. Paul says this to somebody) or living in Christ which is a work and not live lukewarmly (it says this somewhere in Revelations). Prayer is a work. Overcoming temptation is a work. Repenting/penance is a work. (Repentance/penance is like a book; it has words [penance/outer] and meaning [repentant/inner]. If you take away the words, there cannot be a meaning. If you take away the meaning, the words are just words and nothing more. You cannot have one without the other.) Charity is a work. Faith can be a work (debatable). There are many more but these are not works of the law, they are works of grace. There is a huge difference but there is a difference. It is indicated throughout Sacred Tradition.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

You see. This is what I have talking about. The Church is FOR souls to be SAVED! Right now, I am not talking about its Truth and am not opening it up for discussion because it will leave you in a trap; I am just talking about the FACT that there is a concept of saved in Catholicism. The forgiveness of sins is certainly a part of it. Stop telling us what we believe and do not believe. I am laughing because it is getting ridiculous.

Anyway, “Believe in Jesus Christ and you will be saved” says St. Paul to the Romans. This includes believing in His words (faith and works), believing in the Word of God which is Himself (faith and works), “putting on Christ” (St. Paul says this to somebody) or living in Christ which is a work and not live lukewarmly (it says this somewhere in Revelations). Prayer is a work. Overcoming temptation is a work. Repenting/penance is a work. (Repentance/penance is like a book; it has words [penance/outer] and meaning [repentant/inner]. If you take away the words, there cannot be a meaning. If you take away the meaning, the words are just words and nothing more. You cannot have one without the other.) Charity is a work. Faith can be a work (debatable). There are many more but these are not works of the law, they are works of grace. There is a huge difference but there is a difference. It is indicated throughout Sacred Tradition.

Upon retrospect, I should have used love and marriage instead of a book for the complimentarity of repentance and penance.

Love and marriage. Love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage. This I’ll tell you brother, THAT YOU CAN’T HAVE ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER. Love and marriage. Love and marriage. It’s an institute you can’t disparage. Dad was told by momma, “YOU CAN’T HAVE ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER.” So on and so forth.

Whether it be marriage of husband and wife or the marriage of Christ to His Bride, the Church and hence living through the Church and its God-ordained Sacraments. There are other examples of marriage that I fail to mention but the idea is the same. There is always love.

Where there is love, there is marriage. Where there is marriage, there is love. Where there is repentance, there is penance. Where there is penance, there is repentance

 

[Cat_Herder]

Upon retrospect, I should have used love and marriage instead of a book for the complimentarity of repentance and penance.

Love and marriage. Love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage. This I’ll tell you brother, THAT YOU CAN’T HAVE ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER. Love and marriage. Love and marriage. It’s an institute you can’t disparage. Dad was told by momma, “YOU CAN’T HAVE ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER.” So on and so forth.

Whether it be marriage of husband and wife or the marriage of Christ to His Bride, the Church and hence living through the Church and its God-ordained Sacraments. There are other examples of marriage that I fail to mention but the idea is the same. There is always love.

Where there is love, there is marriage. Where there is marriage, there is love. Where there is repentance, there is penance. Where there is penance, there is repentance

Exactly. The New Covenant is a Covenant. Specifically it is a marriage, which is why the Church and Israel are described as the Bride (singular) of Christ. With any covenant comes promises. Faith aloners say the only thing demanded of the Spouse of Christ is that she believes herself to be married–it doesn’t matter how she actually behaves, nor that the Bible says that spouses are to be subordinate.

 

[guanophore]

It can't be *present*.  It happened "*ONCE*" (historically) for all time.  And then an everlasting change took place.  He resurrected to NEW life with a *glorified* body, never to die again.  Hence, Scripture says we do it "*in remembrance*" of Him - according to FAITH.  Always FAITH.

It can’t be present for you, MD, because you are separated from the Apostolic Succession,and do not benefit from a valid priesthood. Therefore, within your faith tradition, there is no one who can cathect the rememberance as He commanded.

I think you might benefit from some study of the anamnesis. The Lord’s Supper is the fulfillment of the Passover. The whole focus of the rememberance (anamnesis) is to make it PRESENT! During that ritual, the real lamb was really consumed. It was a way of bringing the deliverance of Israel present to those of later generations.

Catholic believe that Jesus’ sacrifice transcends time, and by the great mystery of the Eucharist, we become present at the foot of His cross.

   Have you ever seen the Lord physically?  Have you seen the imprint of the nails on his hands?  Have you put your hand into His side (Jn. 20:25)?  The truth is He is not with us physically.  Physically He can be in only one place at a time - according to His humanity.

I see that your conception of God is quite limited.

 Your "eucharist" would disqualify Him.One can be guilty of what it represents.  "*Do this in remembrance of Me*."

I cannot make sense out of this.

How can one “profane” that which does not exist? If it is possible to profane His Body and Blood, it seems needful that they exist.

 

[guanophore]

There were no “priests” (Gk. hiereus) ordained by Christ.

I think if you check the scriptural references to the priestly people that belong to him, you will find that hiereus is indeed used by Peter to describe us. I can tell you assuredly that none of us can be priestly people apart from the choice of Christ.

 He chose Apostles (Gk. *apostolos*) for the foundation of His church/temple, but no "*hiereus*" (priests).

Of course their priesthood comes out of Himself, therefore, it is not a Levitical priesthood, but after the order of Mechizedek.

 Elders (Gk. *presbuteros/episkopos*) were appointed in each local church assembly by men, but no *hiereus* (priests).

I am glad we are in agreement like this. What you may not understand is that the modern English word “priest” is a Latinized contraction of the Gk. word “presybyteros”. It may also escape you that the role of the priest is identical to that of the presbyter in the early church.

There were no "*hiereus*" ordained by Christ or appointed by men in the church.  Scripture speaks only of the general priesthood of all believers.

Which, interestingly, uses 'heirus".

The NT fulfills the Old, which has the priesthood of all believers, the ministerial priesthood, and a High Priest. You rightly note the difference though. The NT priesthood is Melchizedechian.

 

[Philthy]

The issue on this thread is a theological one: “Faith alone or not.”… the issue here is still a theological one: Are we saved through “Faith alone or not.” But the core problem is that Catholicism has no concept of the word “saved”
(a completed, Divine act) in its theological construct, since it sees salvation as a life time process which includes and requires works on the part of men for it to be achieved. Salvation, in Catholicism, being a “hope so,” future event based on one’s present performance

It is patently clear that the disagreement in such discussions does, as you imply, revolve around a misunderstanding of the word “saved”. The question, however, is which understanding is truly erroneous? You take the position that salvation is a “completed, divine act” at the moment one comes to faith in Christ and that there is nothing subsequent to this act which would prevent one from spending eternity with God at the completion of their earthly life. This latter reality is referred to as the “Kingdom of God” or “heaven”. It is very useful to recognize that if the term “saved” implied that one is irrevocably guaranteed heaven (your position) that your “objective source” should use the exact criteria for “inheriting the kingdom of God/Heaven” that it does in discussing “salvation”. But when one approaches Scripture - the NT in particular - in this manner, we find absolutely NOTHING that ever indicates that our inheritance in the kingdom of God is “by faith alone”. Your bloviations aside and your appeal to - not Scripture, but implied logic according to the intellect of MD - become clear: Scripture ceases to be your “objective standard” Even worse for your position, there are a plethora of verses and chapters which absolutely contradict the notion and clearly articulate the Catholic position: after being “saved by grace through faith” our choices during our earthly life can affect and even jeopardize our "inheritance in the Kingdom of God (Heaven). There are some very simple general categories of these behaviors: failure to forgive others, choosing to repent of mortal sin, choosing not to persevere in faith, choosing idolatry, etc.
Here, for like the 20th time, I will share with you clear refutations to the concept that we “inherit the Kingdom of God” by faith alone. All of these verses are directed to “saved” believers who have been “sanctified” and “recieved the Spirit” but who were turning away from the truth:
1 Cor 6:9
Ephesians 5:5
Galatians 5:19-20
Ephesians is the most instructive since Eph 2:8-9, your pet verses, precede these warnings. You acknowledge that Paul has written this letter to those who “have been saved by faith”. So what does he go ON to say to them about “inheriting the Kingdom of God”?
Eph 5:3-5 Immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be mentioned among you, as is fitting among holy ones, no obscenity or silly or suggestive talk, which is out of place, but instead, thanksgiving. Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure or greedy person, that is, an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
Why would Paul be warning those who are guaranteed their eternal inheritance that those who behave certain way won’t inherit it? He wouldnt.
If the inheritance in the Kingdom of God were entirely dependent upon faith alone and not avoiding “immoral or impure or greedy” behavior, why would Paul even mention those behaviors? He wouldnt.

Take up the challenge: Being saved and going to Heaven are slightly different topics. Where is the inheritance in the kindom of God (Heaven) spoken of as accomplished by “faith alone”?

Blessings

 

[Pitcharan]

It is patently clear that the disagreement in such discussions does, as you imply, revolve around a misunderstanding of the word “saved”. The question, however, is which understanding is truly erroneous? …Your bloviations aside and your appeal to - not Scripture, but implied logic according to the intellect of MD - become clear: Scripture ceases to be your “objective standard” …:
1 Cor 6:9
Ephesians 5:5
Galatians 5:19-20
Ephesians is the most instructive since Eph 2:8-9, your pet verses, precede these warnings. You acknowledge that Paul has written this letter to those who “have been saved by faith”. So what does he go ON to say to them about “inheriting the Kingdom of God”?
Eph 5:3-5 Immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be mentioned among you, as is fitting among holy ones, no obscenity or silly or suggestive talk, which is out of place, but instead, thanksgiving. Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure or greedy person, that is, an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
Why would Paul be warning those who are guaranteed their eternal inheritance that those who behave certain way won’t inherit it? He wouldnt.
If the inheritance in the Kingdom of God were entirely dependent upon faith alone and not avoiding “immoral or impure or greedy” behavior, why would Paul even mention those behaviors? He wouldnt.

Take up the challenge: Being saved and going to Heaven are slightly different topics. Where is the inheritance in the kindom of God (Heaven) spoken of as accomplished by “faith alone”? …Blessings

Hi Phil, the reason why MD and many Calvinists err in their understanding, is because of their UNGUIDED UNINSPIRED INTERPRETATION OF ROMANS 4. Revisit this chapter and you will surely have empathy for MD & Co

 

[moondweller]

You say Jesus cannot be physically present on earth because He has risen.

Cat, you merely make quick response to messages. You don’t always comprehend what you read. I never said Jesus “cannnot be physically present on earth.” I said He is PRESENTLY in heaven in His glorified, human body and therefore cannot be in millions of places on earth at the same time. A human body can only be in one place at one time. And to add to that, nor can His human body be dead (sacrificially, Catholicism teaches that its Eucharist is a true, propitiatory sacrifice) and at the same time ALIVE forevermore.

The word “rememberance” is used elsewhere in Scripture to denote a sacrificial rite.

[BIBLEDRB]Numbers 10:10[/BIBLEDRB]

So, because it says “in remembrance,” the Levitical priesthood was a sham and the Temple offerings were just symbolic? I don’t think so.

They were to blow the trumpets at the time of their offerings and sacrifices as a reminder of them before their God. That’s not the same as what Jesus said. Not even close.

Yes.

When did you physically see the Lord? Was He sitting next to you in your car? At your dinner table? Did He knock on your door and you let Him in?

He did not show me the wounds. I don’t need to see them to believe.

The point is Jesus physically manifested Himself before them. But He didn’t show Himself at the same time to various people in various places. For that matter, can you show me in the Scriptures where Jesus, in His human body (whether in His body of humility or glorified body), was ever in more than one place at a time? You can’t, because a true human body cannot be omnipresent. That’s one (only one) of the big differences between humanity and Divinity.

That may have been true when Jesus was in His natural body. But Scripture is quite clear that the glorified body is capable of supernatural acts.

Omnipresence is a Divine attribute ONLY. And still, Jesus is not now in His body of humility (which is needed for your Eucharist) and at the same time in His glorified body which is alive forevermore.

However, this statement does not follow from the above and is also a non sequitur. I think you are confused as to what happens at the Mass. Jesus does not die again. Calvary is made present to the partakers but it is not repeated.

It’s you who are confused as to what is claimed to take place at your Mass. For Calvary to be “present” Jesus (body, soul, spirit and divinity) must be in His body of humility. And He must be bodily present in millions of places at the same time. Sorry, but you’ve just stepped out of the reality of humanity.

CCC 1104 Christian liturgy not only recalls the events that saved us but actualizes them, makes them present. The Paschal mystery of Christ is celebrated, not repeated. It is the celebrations that are repeated, and in each celebration there is an outpouring of the Holy Spirit that makes the unique mystery present.

IOW, the Holy Spirit supposedly makes it ACTUALLY present. Hence, Christ must “actually” exist in His body of humility and His glorified body at the same time; and His human body of humility must be omnipresent. Which would make it no longer human but Divine. Also, where is it taught in the Scriptures that such is the work of the Holy Spirit?

 

[paul_c]

Hi Phil, the reason why MD and many Calvinists err in their understanding, is because of their UNGUIDED UNINSPIRED INTERPRETATION OF ROMANS 4. Revisit this chapter and you will surely have empathy for MD & Co

Well, it goes beyond that doesn’t it. The problem lies with reading selected passages without reading scripture as a unified work. If you read Romans starting with Chapter 1, it starts by saying that people will ultimately be judged bases on their actions. It discusses the fact that the moral law is written on every man’s heart and that therefore no one has ann excuse for doing evil. Only then does it elaborate on this by saying that even those that do good must be doing it out of faith and not just because it is the law.