If the priesthood of all believers rejects heirarchy, why have a leadership structure?

[Tomyris]

I’ve done the same as a protestant. Talked to a pastor behind closed doors about a particular sin I struggled with. Actually, confession in the Catholic Church has not been a adjustment for me at all. I think it’s good for our souls to bring all sin into the light now, as it will all be exposed later, anyhow. Thankfully our priests are more problem solving oriented such as the pastor you mentioned. Never been told to say 7 Hail Marys.

I think whether we are confessing to a Priest/pastor or to Joe Parishoner over at Doubting Thomas Church down the road, either way, it’s a positive experience, spiritually…

So for those non Catholics who have a big issue with confession, I fail to understand the problem with it. Seems you understand the benefit.

In regards to the comment about no priestly intervention mentioned, keep in mind this is the same author of John 20:21-23. Sometimes things go without saying.

The problems I have with the way it is done in the Catholic system are two fold. One is turning it into a ritual with a penance and looking at it as as legal transaction rather than as a relationship. The other is with maintaining a sharp separation between venial and mortal sin. All sin can be mortal, can be fatal spiritually. To say ‘don’t worry about this stuff’ is good advice for the overscrupulous, but that could be fatal to the hard of heart.

I am glad you have priests that are practical with the advice. I had a number of talks with the Catholic priest when I was in RCIA and he was very down to earth and pragmatic. I think if I had gotten to the point of going to confession I would have looked forward to it with him.

There is a place for talking to a pastor or priest that cannot be filled by a lay neighbor. Marriage problems (thinking of my prior example). Forgiveness. Loss of faith. Relationship failures. Loss of job and loss of self-esteem, etc., that he is trained to give wise counsel in. So we are back to the thread topic! :yeah_me:

And back in 1 John 5, there is a textual variation back in verse 10 and one in verse 18. The one in verse 18 is a shift, translated, between him and himself which is the difference between auton and eauton : but the one born of God keeps [him]self: but the one born of God keeps him or but the one born of God keeps him. I’m using the United Bible Societies Third Edition for this.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

The problems I have with the way it is done in the Catholic system are two fold. One is turning it into a ritual with a penance and looking at it as as legal transaction rather than as a relationship. The other is with maintaining a sharp separation between venial and mortal sin. All sin can be mortal, can be fatal spiritually. To say ‘don’t worry about this stuff’ is good advice for the overscrupulous, but that could be fatal to the hard of heart.

I am glad you have priests that are practical with the advice. I had a number of talks with the Catholic priest when I was in RCIA and he was very down to earth and pragmatic. I think if I had gotten to the point of going to confession I would have looked forward to it with him.

There is a place for talking to a pastor or priest that cannot be filled by a lay neighbor. Marriage problems (thinking of my prior example). Forgiveness. Loss of faith. Relationship failures. Loss of job and loss of self-esteem, etc., that he is trained to give wise counsel in. So we are back to the thread topic! :yeah_me:

And back in 1 John 5, there is a textual variation back in verse 10 and one in verse 18. The one in verse 18 is a shift, translated, between him and himself which is the difference between auton and eauton : but the one born of God keeps [him]self: but the one born of God keeps him or but the one born of God keeps him. I’m using the United Bible Societies Third Edition for this.

Yeah i can see the rigidness of the experience being bothersome. The mechanical aspect of it. Or in my fundamentalist mother’s critique of the Catholic church…the “legalism” as she calls it. She insists that if your church tells you what to do then you are not " free in Christ". I’ve tried to explain the difference between lawfulness accompanied by sacrifice that Christ demands of us and “legalism” but her mind is made up.

Anyway ritual w/o relationship is no fun. Personally i enjoy pretty much all church stuff and do it cheerfully. And my parish is part of the charismatic renewal and very upbeat and ive been told its not necessarily typical in comparison with standard parishes. Hopefully you didn’t have a bad experience in your near attempt at crossing the Tiber. But if so, i get it. They aren’t all created equal.

Thanks for the info on 1 John 5. Pleasure speaking with you tonight.

God bless

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi La,

Agree that they had authority.

Remember that preaching is a joint venture with the Holy Ghost, indeed the Breath of Christ. No one repents and then confesses Jesus as Lord, but by this same Holy Ghost. When Peter first preached, for sure the breath of God came out of Peter, and for sure the people were convicted and changed by the Holy Ghost, many glady being baptized. Can’t get more “authoritative” than that.

Every Christian, every disciple, has this authority to preach the gospel in the Holy Ghost, (and as St Francis might inject, sometimes use words.) It is recorded. It’s in the books. Folks will be judged then by what they see and hear, and how they respond to the Christian’s “witness”. This is all quite “tangible”.

For sure the apostles had authority to be just that, ''sent ones", to preach with authority, and make disciples, to do the same, in one fashion or another. Being an apostle , or preacher or teacher is a gift for some. Sharing Christ with others thru the Holy Ghost is for all in the Body. He indwells us as a living fountain, with living waters. A thirsty world needs no more authority, at least not to come to Christ. After that, yes, submit yourself to the church and your (a) spiritual father as a babe in Christ.

Blessings

Hi Ben

Even though i mostly disagree with your interpretation of the verses in question…i do appreciate your sincerity and discipleship of the Lord. We all need to be more Christo centric with stronger desire to preach the gospel message.

Pax

 

[Vonsalza]

And I. like you, am a member of that visible Church.

Well… as an Anglican, your priests lack valid holy orders from a Catholic or Orthodox perspective. Thus I disagree. Were you Orthodox or even a form of Oriental, my reservation would be less certain. After certain episcopal events within Anglicanism during last 20 years, I have very little doubt about the Catholic view of those “orders”.

Where is the support for the :Counter Reformation", or of dogmatic declarations without truly ecumenical councils?

The “Counter Reformation” of Catholicism didn’t “reform” the priesthood - it was a series of meetings and changes adopted by the same ole’ Catholic Church that had been around since day 1.

The question still stands. Where did God appear to change the law and thus legitimatize the “priests” of the reformation, as per Paul?

Lutheran belief interpreted for me by a-]n/-] -]Anglican/-] Baptist turned Catholic.
Since the scripture does not teach that someone who comes to faith cannot lose, the teaching of perseverence of the saints is false.

I wish you success in contacting the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church to change their official FAQ.

I would argue against personal revelation, hence the fallacy. Not all “protestants” teach what you are arguing against. Not all teach sola fide, or sola scriptura…

Debate the “root” and you successfully debate any errant “branch” that grows from it.

I’m sure we’re both well aware that the unquestionably overwhelming majority of protestants both in population and denomination count hold to at least one of those three 16th century innovations.

Denial and obfuscation makes it no less true.

It was government policy that was protested at the Second Diet of Speyer, not Catholic teaching. When Luther nailed his Theses, the topic was, essentially, indulgences. Why would he go to the government about that?

I’m sure you’re right. My objection is to the obscure notion that the term “protestant” refers specifically to the protest at Speyer 2.

Agreed. Take that argument to someone who disputes it.

I wasn’t aware we were communicating for the sole purpose of dispute.

 

[Vonsalza]

Lutheran belief interpreted for me by a-]n/-] -]Anglican/-] Baptist turned Catholic.

Just so we’re a little clearer, I’m a -]Jew/-] -]Catholic/-] -]Anglican/-] -]Episcopal/-] -](Anabaptist influenced)/-] Baptist-turned-back-to-Catholic

 

[JonNC]

=Vonsalza;14568475]Well… as an Anglican, your priests lack valid holy orders from a Catholic or Orthodox perspective. Thus I disagree. Were you Orthodox or even a form of Oriental, my reservation would be less certain. After certain episcopal events within Anglicanism during last 20 years, I have very little doubt about the Catholic view of those “orders”.

With respect, and with great affection for the Catholic Church, its view of our orders is irrelevant to me.

The “Counter Reformation” of Catholicism didn’t “reform” the priesthood - it was a series of meetings and changes adopted by the same ole’ Catholic Church that had been around since day 1.

The question still stands. Where did God appear to change the law and thus legitimatize the “priests” of the reformation, as per Paul?

The question still stands, where did God appear and allow one bishop to claim the innovation of universal jurisdiction without benefit of a council? In that way, ISTM there is a significant break in the understanding of the priesthood from that of the early councils.

I wish you success in contacting the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church to change their official FAQ.

The faqct that you misrepresent the position of the LCMS won’t phase them too much.

Debate the “root” and you successfully debate any errant “branch” that grows from it.

Again, the fallacy that it is one entity.

I’m sure we’re both well aware that the unquestionably overwhelming majority of protestants both in population and denomination count hold to at least one of those three 16th century innovations.

Be specific. And list which of them has a universal understanding.

I’m sure you’re right. My objection is to the obscure notion that the term “protestant” refers specifically to the protest at Speyer 2.

the fact that you didn’t know it doesn’t make it obscure.

I wasn’t aware we were communicating for the sole purpose of dispute.

We shouldn’t be. One the vast majority of teachings, we more than likely agree. So, again, when you have a disagreement with a particular person or group, discuss, debate with them about their specific teaching.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Just so we’re a little clearer, I’m a -]Jew/-] -]Catholic/-] -]Anglican/-] -]Episcopal/-] -](Anabaptist influenced)/-] Baptist-turned-back-to-Catholic

Goodness! You’re rather traveled. I’m happy you found your way back to where the Lord appears to want you to be.

Jon

 

[Vonsalza]

Goodness! You’re rather traveled. I’m happy you found your way back to where the Lord appears to want you to be.

Jon

I thought you were commenting on the origin of the Baptist denomination in general.

 

[JonNC]

I’m sure you’re right. My objection is to the obscure notion that the term “protestant” refers specifically to the protest at Speyer 2.

By 1529 the Turks were moving toward Buda (now part of Budapest), which they captured in September of that year, and Vienna. Facing these perils, Charles concluded peace with France, sealing his triumph in the west with his coronation as emperor at Bologna, Italy. He then returned to Germany.

These events formed the larger political context in which Lutheran church organization took place. Forced to solicit military aid from the estates in 1526, Ferdinand postponed implementation of the Worms edict, accepting a declaration by the Diet of Speyer of that year to the effect that every estate “will, with its subjects, act, live, and govern in matters touching the Worms edict in a way each can justify before God and his Imperial Majesty.” This declaration gave Lutheran rulers the signal to proceed with their intended legal, administrative, financial, and liturgical reforms, and the years following 1526 saw the construction in every Lutheran territory of what amounted to a state church, headed by the ruling prince.

In 1529 this process was interrupted when, following the emperor’s military successes, Ferdinand demanded at a diet, also held in Speyer, that, pending a general council to decide the religious issue, Lutherans and other religious dissenters should end their separation. **(It was the “protest” of a number of princes and cities against this abrogation of the earlier Speyer decree that attached to the followers of Luther and other Reformation theologians the name “Protestants.”) **

britannica.com/place/Germany/The-Reformation#ref297326

 

[Vonsalza]

Learn something new everyday!

While you appear to be correct (and I thus wrong) about the etymology of the word “protestant”, I think we may still agree that the term refers to an adherent of the principals of the reformation rather than a protester at Speyer 2.

From Oxford:

Protestant-
“A member or follower of any of the Western Christian churches that are separate from the Roman Catholic Church and follow the principles of the Reformation, including the Baptist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran churches.”

Thanks for the tidbit.

 

[Vonsalza]

The question still stands, where did God appear and allow one bishop to claim the innovation of universal jurisdiction without benefit of a council?

Matthew 16:18. The Lord granted Simon his new name, “Peter”. Which is “rock”. And said that on this “rock” He’ll build His Church. We agree, I’m sure, Christ requires no council.

When God changes a man’s name in scripture, there appears to be a theme of leadership. Abram - Abraham. Jacob - Israel. Simon - Peter.

The faqct that you misrepresent the position of the LCMS won’t phase them too much.

Their words. I’ll quote again. "We affirm with Scripture that those who are predestined to salvation cannot be lost but will continue by God’s power to a blessed end ".
This does not apply to those who are not predestined but are still Christian.

One the vast majority of teachings, we more than likely agree. So, again, when you have a disagreement with a particular person or group, discuss, debate with them about their specific teaching.

The heretic only needs be heretical in one aspect of the faith in order to be so. The “solas” are examples of specific heresies that they appeal to. If you wish to exclude Anglicanism from the cross-hairs of protestant critique, there’s merit for the position, as I’ve mentioned before.
I’m sure we’d agree, for example, that “sola scriptura” describes part of the approach to faith employed by the resounding majority of Protestantism. In critiquing that heretical “root”, you successfully critique so many protestant “vines”.

---

The standing question is still one with merit that isn’t dismissed by simply posing a counter-question and it pertains directly to the OP:

If Paul said “For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also”, where was the divine change in law that even allowed Martin Luther and others to reject the priesthood of the Church? Where did God “thus spake”?

 

[JonNC]

=Vonsalza;14568909]Matthew 16:18. The Lord granted Simon his new name, “Peter”. Which is “rock”. And said that on this “rock” He’ll build His Church. We agree, I’m sure, Christ requires no council.

When God changes a man’s name in scripture, there appears to be a theme of leadership. Abram - Abraham. Jacob - Israel. Simon - Peter.

I agree with all of that. I’m sure our Orthodox brethren do, as well. No mention, of supremacy. No mention of universal jurisdiction.

Their words. I’ll quote again. "We affirm with Scripture that those who are predestined to salvation cannot be lost but will continue by God’s power to a blessed end ".
This does not apply to those who are not predestined but are still Christian.

Here’s the whole quote. Take note, they are answering the question, what are the differences.

QUESTION: What are the major differences between the Missouri Synod and Reformed churches?

ANSWER: Just as there are many significant differences in theology and practice between Lutherans of varying denominations, the same is true when it comes to different churches within the Reformed tradition.

Differences exist among Reformed churches even regarding such fundamental issues as the authority of Scripture and the nature and centrality of the doctrine of justification.

Historically, however, most Reformed churches adhere to the five points of Calvinist theology commonly summarized by the acrostic “tulip” as these were set forth at the Synod of Dort (1618-19).

On page 41 in his book, Churches in America, Dr. Thomas Manteufel reviews these five points and explains how they compare and/or contrast with what Lutherans believe regarding these matters.

T (Total Depravity) The Calvinists rightly teach that all descendants of Adam are by nature totally corrupt in spiritual matters. People do not have freedom of the will to turn to God in faith or cooperate in their conversions (Eph. 2:1; John 3:5-6; Rom. 8:7).
Lutheranism agrees with this teaching.

U (Unconditional predestination) Scripture does teach that it is by grace that God has predestinated the elect to eternal salvation and given them justifying faith. It is not because of any condition fulfilled by them (2 Tim. 1:9; Eph. 1:4-6; Phil. 1:29). However, the Bible does not teach, as do the Calvinists, that some are predestined for damnation. God wants all to be saved (1 Tim 2:4).
In other words, Lutherans do not agree with Unconditional predestination

L (Limited atonement) It is true that Christ died for the church and purchased it with His blood (Eph. 5:25; Acts 20:28). Furthermore, His atoning death does not mean that all people are saved (1 Cor. 1:18).** However, Jesus died for all (2 Cor. 5:15).
**
In other words, Lutherans reject the teaching of Limited Atonement

I (Irresistible grace) We agree that God makes us alive by His mighty power, without our aid (Eph. 2:5; John 1:13). But Scripture warns we can resist God’s gracious call (Matt. 23:37; Acts 7:51; 2 Cor. 6:1). And some people do resist God’s grace, or all would be saved (1 Tim 2:4). Furthermore, God warns us not to resist His grace (2 Cor. 6:1; Heb. 4:7).
In other words, Lutherans reject the teaching of Irresistible grace

P (Perseverance in grace) We affirm with Scripture that those who are predestined to salvation cannot be lost but will continue by God’s power to a blessed end (Rom. 8:30; 1 Peter 1:5). **Scripture does not teach, however, that those who come to faith cannot lose that faith (Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26-29; Ps. 51:11). God urges His people not to continue in sin but to live in repentance and faith (Rom. 6:1-4). **
In other words, Lutherans reject the teaching of perseverance of saints, that even those who come to faith can lose it.

Lutheran reject the ULIP of the TULIP. Always have. Assertions otherwise are false.

Jon

 

[benhur]

Hi Ben

Even though i mostly disagree with your interpretation of the verses in question…i do appreciate your sincerity and discipleship of the Lord. We all need to be more Christo centric with stronger desire to preach the gospel message.

Pax

thanks…agree to our need, personally

 

[Vonsalza]

I agree with all of that. I’m sure our Orthodox brethren do, as well. No mention, of supremacy. No mention of universal jurisdiction.

If you’re capable of recognizing the primacy of Peter in Christ’s decree, the councils at Jerusalem and Antioch being held there because they were his location, and he being the primary reason Paul operated out of Rome - then that’s “Catholic” enough for me.
Abraham was the father of God’s people, Israel founded God’s nation, Peter was the first high priest of God’s Church.

If councilarism was as requisite as you think, I imagine we’d have seen more of it, even pre-NT.

Lutheran reject the ULIP of the TULIP. Always have. Assertions otherwise are false.

This is getting a touch pedantic…

Sticking with the “P” we’ve centered on…

P (Perseverance in grace) We affirm with Scripture that those who are predestined to salvation cannot be lost but will continue by God’s power to a blessed end (Rom. 8:30; 1 Peter 1:5). Scripture does not teach, however, that those who come to faith cannot lose that faith (Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26-29; Ps. 51:11). God urges His people not to continue in sin but to live in repentance and faith (Rom. 6:1-4).

The bold part is a nigh-perfect explanation of a Calvinist view for the perseverance of the saints. The only deviation between the Lutheran and the Calvinist is the Lutheran view that a Christian can be either predestined or not predestined. A Calvinist only recognizes the former.

 

[JonNC]

If you’re capable of recognizing the primacy of Peter in Christ’s decree, the councils at Jerusalem and Antioch being held there because they were his location, and he being the primary reason Paul operated out of Rome - then that’s “Catholic” enough for me.
Abraham was the father of God’s people, Israel founded God’s nation, Peter was the first high priest of God’s Church.

If councilarism was as requisite as you think, I imagine we’d have seen more of it, even pre-NT.

This is getting a touch pedantic…

Sticking with the “P” we’ve centered on…

When it is a matter of doctrine, it is not pedantic. Being precise is important, unless someone has a polemical reason to conflate. Take a look.
firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/10/why-lutheran-predestination-isnt-calvinist-predestination

 

[Sky_River]

I’m curious about this. According to the teaching known as the priesthood of all believers, there is no hierarchical priesthood set over the community to mediate between God and man. Why then have trained leaders who function on a practical level in much the same way only without the theological backdrop as a reason?

Also, if the Bible is the sole rule and norm of faith by which all doctrine is to be judged, how does one go about enforcing creeds and confessions as “orthodox” when a highly charismatic person decides they are inspired by the Holy Spirit to understand differently? I want to hear the rationale for this.

Isn’t it because protestants dont believe in sacerdotal worship services?

 

[josephback]

Isn’t it because protestants dont believe in sacerdotal worship services?

This answers the first part of my question, but not the second.

 

[josephback]

Well, there never was a such thing as “Protestant” unity, since there never was a "Protestant church ". So, yes, one has to refer to different traditions within the western Church, and how they view this.

Given this premise, what was it that inspired your conversion from Lutheranism to Anglicanism?

 

[peter26]

A leadership structure in any organisation is a logistical necessity. If the church had no leadership structure, how do you decide what to do during the liturgy? Even if you let each priest (or minister, or facilitator or whatever term you prefer) do his own thing, he is still a leader, there is still a hierarchy. Even if a member of the congregation leads the service, and you rotate this role every week, there is still a leader for that time.

 

[JonNC]

Given this premise, what was it that inspired your conversion from Lutheranism to Anglicanism?

Ironically, because of a reason related to above. The parish I was in was allowing an unordained seminarian to preside at the sacraments, contrary to the confessions.

Jon