On WHAT basis does your Church claim to be the One TRUE-Faith Church of the Bible?

[total_Catholic]

No need to apologize, I can understand. It can be a struggle, I know this.

I just wanted to share what I know.

I am happy to help if I can.

You know what scares me? When I try to live the Catholic faith, toe to toe, rule by rule, line by line, I become so miserable and angry.

At times, when I attend either anglican, episcopal or lutheran churches and participate, I feel more peaceful yet my conscious bothers me?

Does God want me to suffer mentally as a catholic my entire life? Maybe my RCIA was invalid and trust me, I’ve wondered many times if it was. Sadly, there were more current catholic members of that parish that were at RCIA more than those of us, 3, that were actually coming into the church.

My sister, a parish secretary at another parish at that time, was livid. And she even tried to tell me that that church was doing RCIA wrong. It was more like adult education.

Again, sorry for being miserable here and lashing out at others. I just feel so lost and confused and having all these divisions doesn’t help somebody with my mental personality and no, I cannot afford therapy. Sadly.

 

[mattp0625]

You know what scares me? When I try to live the Catholic faith, toe to toe, rule by rule, line by line, I become so miserable and angry.

At times, when I attend either anglican, episcopal or lutheran churches and participate, I feel more peaceful yet my conscious bothers me?

Does God want me to suffer mentally as a catholic my entire life? Maybe my RCIA was invalid and trust me, I’ve wondered many times if it was. Sadly, there were more current catholic members of that parish that were at RCIA more than those of us, 3, that were actually coming into the church.

My sister, a parish secretary at another parish at that time, was livid. And she even tried to tell me that that church was doing RCIA wrong. It was more like adult education.

Again, sorry for being miserable here and lashing out at others. I just feel so lost and confused and having all these divisions doesn’t help somebody with my mental personality and no, I cannot afford therapy. Sadly.

I have heard that RCIA does have issues at times. Some in the Church admit that its methods of religious education have suffered.

Those other denominations are told things that make it easier to be Christian. Easier does not equate to truth.

God does not want you to suffer, He only wants us to do the best we can. That is not to say that you are not experiencing spiritual warfare - perhaps you are! I think Saint Padre Pio said: “pray, hope, and don’t worry”.

Easier said than done? Perhaps. But try not to focus on the guilt aspect of sin. Instead try to find the fruits of the Spirit in what you are trying to accomplish. If you are focused on guilt, and I’ve done it too, the enemy wins.

I believe there are many ways you can combat these thoughts and find greater peace.

Saint Faustina had visions of Jesus. She said that Jesus said he has an ocean of mercy for us that is greater than any sin. I like to think about that when I feel guilt or shame. It might be worth reading her diaries.

I would like to offer this inspiring talk by Sister Miriam James:

youtube.com/watch?v=96uyfr5FIjs

I would also like to suggest the following on YouTube: Mother Angelica Live, EWTN The Journey Home (conversion stories), and anything with Bishop Fulton Sheen.

Some of my additional favorite reads, outside of the bible, include The Imitation of Christ and Miracles Do Happen.

Lastly, have you thought about joining a ministry that honors Jesus by helping others? I like to think about Matthew 25 (sheep and goats) when I consider ministry.

 

[benhur]

You know what scares me? When I try to live the Catholic faith, toe to toe, rule by rule, line by line, I become so miserable and angry.

At times, when I attend either anglican, episcopal or lutheran churches and participate, I feel more peaceful yet my conscious bothers me?

Does God want me to suffer mentally as a catholic my entire life? Maybe my RCIA was invalid and trust me, I’ve wondered many times if it was. Sadly, there were more current catholic members of that parish that were at RCIA more than those of us, 3, that were actually coming into the church.

My sister, a parish secretary at another parish at that time, was livid. And she even tried to tell me that that church was doing RCIA wrong. It was more like adult education.

Again, sorry for being miserable here and lashing out at others. I just feel so lost and confused and having all these divisions doesn’t help somebody with my mental personality and no, I cannot afford therapy. Sadly.

Hi tc,

Sorry to hear your distress…yet , your weakness may be to show forth His strength in you. Post #174 and #249 deal with this a bit. One paragraph in particular,

"Of course we are to seek and be like Jesus and that within the Body, the church/community. Of course which “community’’ also matters. I will admit that Catholicism is very attractive, much filled with religious things to partake of. Yet I am also reminded of one of Richard Wiurmbrands (imprisoned under communism for years) sermons, “the power of nothing”. In it he describes being in a prison cell with nothing just the floor, a bowl, and scantily clad. Yet within that darkness he had the deepest intimacy with Christ. No ceremonies, rituals, sacraments, incense, prayer beads etc. But for sure he would tell us the gates of hell could not prevail, break his bond/time with the Lord.”

Beyond a shadow of a doubt , His voice is beyond and higher than any division, beyond being a "Catholic voice, or a Lutheran voice etc., etc…

Actually a few reformers (and saints) suffered as you, even to sickness, over the inability to fully have peace in one’s Christian walk. yet they found peace when they realized what is taught, that salvation, beginning to end, is by grace, a gift from God.

We are to be born again, of the spirit , when all things become new and indeed we then love to do His will. We are not to try to please Him , in the flesh. Of course there is the baptism of the Holy Ghost giving us the power also.

Pray that helps.

Blessings

 

[mackbrislawn]

Your question only makes sense if one thinks of the Church as a visible, indefectible, authoritative and hierarchical body. You have to understand that from a denomational church model this generally isn’t the case. For Orthodox and Catholic the grace of God is mediated to one through the sacraments of the church. For those who do not ascribe to such a model the question makes no sense. Luther kept a role for the visible church and the sacraments but among groups descended from the Anabaptists any visible body is more or less a practical matter. Theexistence of a traceable, identifiable, hierarchical Church that safeguards the teachings of Christ is not considered. This is a Catholic/Orthodox mindset.

You know, this question would make perfect sense to a Mormon or a Jehovah’s Witness, and maybe to a member of the Church of Christ. They do not consider themselves to be denominations, but restorations of the original church. The Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses in particular consider themselves to be the One True Church. Witnesses condemn all other religionists as false. Church of Christ is congregational, but the Mormons and Witnesses are very visible, authoritative, and hierarchical.

 

[total_Catholic]

I was in the KOC for over a decade and even helped co-chair our Operation H.O.P.E. campaign, did alter serving, etc. Just had a crisis of faith in early 09 and haven’t been the same since.

I had one confessor tell me once that I have either p’offed the Devil so much or I will in the future that he is throwing everything at me. Meh… I don’t give myself that much credit.

Perhaps in the last 7 years, learning more and more about all the different churches and participating in several of them has just put too much pressure on me considering all the OCD issues I suffer with.

Again, I am sorry if it seems like I hijacked this thread as that was not my intention. In all honestly, I just want help, peace of mind and to live a life of concord with those different than me. It seem so hard to obtain. Peace.

 

[total_Catholic]

Hi tc,

Sorry to hear your distress…yet , your weakness may be to show forth His strength in you. Post #174 and #249 deal with this a bit. One paragraph in particular,

"Of course we are to seek and be like Jesus and that within the Body, the church/community. Of course which “community’’ also matters. I will admit that Catholicism is very attractive, much filled with religious things to partake of. Yet I am also reminded of one of Richard Wiurmbrands (imprisoned under communism for years) sermons, “the power of nothing”. In it he describes being in a prison cell with nothing just the floor, a bowl, and scantily clad. Yet within that darkness he had the deepest intimacy with Christ. No ceremonies, rituals, sacraments, incense, prayer beads etc. But for sure he would tell us the gates of hell could not prevail, break his bond/time with the Lord.”

Beyond a shadow of a doubt , His voice is beyond and higher than any division, beyond being a "Catholic voice, or a Lutheran voice etc., etc…

Actually a few reformers (and saints) suffered as you, even to sickness, over the inability to fully have peace in one’s Christian walk. yet they found peace when they realized what is taught, that salvation, beginning to end, is by grace, a gift from God.

We are to be born again, of the spirit , when all things become new and indeed we then love to do His will. We are not to try to please Him , in the flesh. Of course there is the baptism of the Holy Ghost giving us the power also.

Pray that helps.

Blessings

Thanks man and sorry if I offended you with earlier posts. Just a mess.

 

[Wannano]

So let me ask you this Father. As somebody who was told while coming into the RCC from a Protestant background that the RCC was the one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic faith founded by Christ and yet I have had my wayward moments I will admit, that if others follow their conscience to the best of their upbringing, they can find salvation and live in Heaven while I on the other hand who struggles mightily with Marian theology to the point of trying other churches before yet am afraid of burning in Hell for all eternity because the RCC tells that I will if I leave the RCC, that I will burn in Hell? How do I reconcile this?

Keep in mind, as a lonely man. Never been married, hardly any friends, trying to make the best of this, struggles with OCD, lust and masturbation, the one thing that would seem to keep me right, the teachings of the RCC, actually are torture because I cannot leave the RCC without burning in Hell for all eternity yet others can stay away from the RCC and inherit Heaven.

As I’ve told a confessor, I don’t live, I just exist. And with all of this confusion, sometimes, I wish I had the guts to end it all. Any advice YOU can give me would be a big help!

I feel a sense of responsibility to you since I am the one who posted something that you responded to. I will admit you had me baffled for a time but I want you to know I never harbored a grudge or felt ill will toward you.

Galatians 2:20 is a verse that is meaningful to me. “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”

 

[benhur]

Thanks man and sorry if I offended you with earlier posts. Just a mess.

Hi tc,

Sorry to see you suspended, and did not see any offense, but did not read all your posts. Will be praying for your healing from OTC…and nobody is perfect , or free from the challenges of "problems’’.

Blessings

 

[steve_b]

Hi CC

Actually He did. Sin /error divides. The twelve tribes split, into northern kingdom and southern kingdom.

Beyond their prophets/kings, their "theologians/rabbis split also(Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes etc ), but they all remained “Jewish”, from whence came our Salvation. *
*

Not to presume to speak for Cyril of Canada’s points,

One could point out the following instructions from Jesus *

*Matt 10:5These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And preach as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’

Matt 15: 22 And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and cried, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon.” 23 But he did not answer her a word.And his disciples came and begged him, saying, “Send her away, for she is crying after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

picking just these points

• The sheep of the house of Israel were LOST .
• only NOW is ‘The kingdom of heaven at hand.’ for THEM ( the lost sheep)

One could ask these questions

1. • Who are those sheep, and why are they LOST?
   • The kingdom only happens for THEM (the lost sheep) if they do something. What then must they do?
   • If they don’t do that something, are they still lost?

   *
   
   *Quite a micro view. I did post of the problems the church had. *One of those problems was not reforming, in the face of reformers (but later,after the schism).

   
   Re: reformers
   
   can you define the difference between “reformers” and Great Heresies
   b:
   

   Schism takes two . The Didache says, “Do not make a schism but pacify those that contend”.

   Here’s the version of the Didache I use The Didache (c. 100)
   
   As an aside, the Church talked about here is the Catholic Church. So this is warning, don’t divide (go into schism) from the Catholic Church. No one should desire to go into schism. All effort should be made to gain peace.
   
   Chapter 4. Various Precepts
   
   "My child, him that speaks to you the word of God remember night and day; and you shall honour him as the Lord; for in the place whence lordly rule is uttered, there is the Lord. And you shall seek out day by day the faces of the saints, in order that you may rest upon their words. You shall not long for division, but shall bring those who contend to peace. You shall judge righteously, you shall not respect persons in reproving for transgressions. You shall not be undecided whether it shall be or no. Be not a stretcher forth of the hands to receive and a drawer of them back to give. If you have anything, through your hands you shall give ransom for your sins. You shall not hesitate to give, nor murmur when you give; for you shall know who is the good repayer of the hire. You shall not turn away from him that is in want, but you shall share all things with your brother, and shall not say that they are your own; for if you are partakers in that which is immortal, how much more in things which are mortal? You shall not remove your hand from your son or from your daughter, but from their youth shall teach them the fear of God. You shall not enjoin anything in your bitterness upon your bondman or maidservant, who hope in the same God, lest ever they shall fear not God who is over both; for he comes not to call according to the outward appearance, but unto them whom the Spirit has prepared. And you bondmen shall be subject to your masters as to a type of God, in modesty and fear. You shall hate all hypocrisy and everything which is not pleasing to the Lord. Forsake in no way the commandments of the Lord; but you shall keep what you have received, neither adding thereto nor taking away therefrom . In the church you shall acknowledge your transgressions, and you shall not come near for your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life.
   
   Look at the passage underlined leading up to the passage you reference (in red).
   
   Honor who as the Lord? Almost sounds like one of Ignatius letters Epistle to the Smyrnæans , ch’s 8-9.

 

[josephback]

You know, this question would make perfect sense to a Mormon or a Jehovah’s Witness, and maybe to a member of the Church of Christ. They do not consider themselves to be denominations, but restorations of the original church. The Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses in particular consider themselves to be the One True Church. Witnesses condemn all other religionists as false. Church of Christ is congregational, but the Mormons and Witnesses are very visible, authoritative, and hierarchical.

I did not think of them in the post, but it’s true that they would understand the question. The difference is, what’s their succession?

 

[mackbrislawn]

I did not think of them in the post, but it’s true that they would understand the question. The difference is, what’s their succession?

The Mormons would claim that God withdrew the succession very early on when the Church went apostate at the death of the apostles, then the succession was restored or re-established with Joseph Smith and the LDS Church has had a legitimate succession since then.

The Watchtower is a little more cagey, in that they sometimes try to make a claim that they are successors to “true Bible believers” who somehow vaguely existed down through the ages, but their main claim to legitimacy is that when Jesus returned in 1914 he looked around and saw that the Watchtower movement was the group that was most fully doing his will, and so chose them to be “God’s channel of communication to mankind,” and “the faithful and discreet servant.” Succession has continued in the Watchtower since then. Of course they don’t call it that, in fact they claim that “apostolic succession” is not a biblical doctrine. (The Witnesses often mock “religionists” for doing something, then they turn around and do the very same thing, but don’t call it that.)

The Church of Christ seems to ignore the whole question.

 

[guanophore]

They had bishops and deacons, but they didn’t have Christian priests yet.

I am curious how you came to this conclusion.

“Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15And the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick.” James 5:14

elder = πρεσβυτέρους = presbyter, from which our English word “priest” was contracted.

“To Titus, my true child in our common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior. 5The reason I left you in Crete was that you would set in order what was unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. 6An elder must be blameless…” Titus 1:5

Who did you think the Bishops were appointing?

The Greek word hiereus which is translated to priest was only used for Jewish priests and Jesus as the high priest in the book Hebrews. (1 Peter 2:5 & 9 uses hierateuma for priesthood of all believers). I believe I read somewhere that Origen 203-250 was the first to refer to a Christian leader as a hiereus and then in the coming centuries the term became customary to use.

No, the Catholic priest is caught up into the priesthood of Christ, who is a priest after teh order of Melchizedech.

Elders/presbyters did not get morphed into “priest” in the West until Latin overtook Greek and the word became a contraction. The role has never changed from the NT.

 

[susanlo]

I am curious how you came to this conclusion.

“Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15And the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick.” James 5:14

elder = πρεσβυτέρους = presbyter, from which our English word “priest” was contracted.

“To Titus, my true child in our common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior. 5The reason I left you in Crete was that you would set in order what was unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. 6An elder must be blameless…” Titus 1:5

Who did you think the Bishops were appointing?

No, the Catholic priest is caught up into the priesthood of Christ, who is a priest after teh order of Melchizedech.

Elders/presbyters did not get morphed into “priest” in the West until Latin overtook Greek and the word became a contraction. The role has never changed from the NT.

I was referring to the terminology. In the NT and in the writing of the first few centuries the Greek word hiereus - “a priest, one who offers sacrifice to a god” - biblehub.com/greek/2409.htm - was used to speak of a Jewish priest (Levite), Jesus, or a pagan priest.

Christian leaders were mostly episkopos(overseer → bishop) and presbuteros(presbyter) - “elder, usually used as subst.; an elder, a member of the Sanhedrin, an elder of a Christian assembly.” - biblehub.com/greek/4245.htm - This was used to refer to elders in the Jewish faith and the Christian leaders.

In the NT Jewish era an elder(presbyter) and a priest(hiereus) were 2 distinctly different roles. At the time of Ignatius, Christian leaders were called episkopos and presbyters - bishops and elders. Over the centuries elders began to be called priests as some various ideas were evolving.

 

[guanophore]

How do you know that this is not to be taken metaphorically, since there are so many things in Scripture that Catholics say are not to be taken literally.

A literal interpretation should always be taken into account. I is one of the senses of Scriptures. There are some passages that are literal and metphorical.

How do we “know”? We read and understand what is written from the perspective of the faith that produced it. This is what was handed down to us through the Apostles.

According to the Orthodox Study Bible pg. 1299  Jesus' statement "You are peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church (Mat 16:18) was not of  Peter himself, but of the faith of his confession. In other words,  Jesus is the Rock of the Church, and the Church is built on the faithful confession of Christ.

Jesus is the Rock. He grafted Peter into Himself, making him Cephas. Cephas also made a “rocky” statement.

Jesus making Simon into Cephas does not in any way subtract from His own rock ness.

Ephesians 2
19 So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the corner stone
, 21 in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; 22 in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

The Bible tells us that Jesus was the Rock or that Jesus was the corner stone.

Yes, and the foundation stones are also rocks, and we are built into the foundation, held by the Cornerstone. You seem to be working hard to avoid the significance of Jesus making Simon into Cephas.

I don’t think this quote is addressing the prophets of Israel specifically, but there were subgroups within Judaism in the first century.

Are you saying that this is a model of how He wanted His One Church to function?

I was referring to the terminology. In the NT and in the writing of the first few centuries the Greek word hiereus - "a priest, one who offers sacrifice to a god" - [biblehub.com/greek/2409.htm](http://biblehub.com/greek/2409.htm) - was used to speak of a Jewish priest (Levite), Jesus, or a pagan priest.

Yes. OK we are on the same page with that. I thought you were saying that Catholics understood the priesthood as heirus.

 Christian leaders were mostly episkopos(overseer --> bishop) and presbuteros(presbyter) - "elder, usually used as subst.; an elder, a member of the Sanhedrin, an elder of a Christian assembly." - [biblehub.com/greek/4245.htm](http://biblehub.com/greek/4245.htm) - This was used to refer to elders in the Jewish faith and the Christian leaders.

This is the meaning understood as the foundation of the Catholic priesthood.

In the NT Jewish era an elder(presbyter) and a priest(hiereus) were 2 distinctly different roles. At the time of Ignatius, Christian leaders were called episkopos and presbyters - bishops and elders. Over the centuries elders began to be called priests as some various ideas were evolving.

The only evolution was the term “priest” which became a contraction in the West from “Presbyter”. The role never changed. Presbyters were appointed and acted in place of the Bishop when he was absent. As the Church grew, some communities did not see a bishop for a long time. Do you understand Timothy and Titus as persons ordained to the bishopric by Paul? Do you agree that Paul instructed them to appoint presbyters?

 

[Darryl_B]

I was referring to the terminology. In the NT and in the writing of the first few centuries the Greek word hiereus - “a priest, one who offers sacrifice to a god” - biblehub.com/greek/2409.htm - was used to speak of a Jewish priest (Levite), Jesus, or a pagan priest.

Christian leaders were mostly episkopos(overseer → bishop) and presbuteros(presbyter) - “elder, usually used as subst.; an elder, a member of the Sanhedrin, an elder of a Christian assembly.” - biblehub.com/greek/4245.htm - This was used to refer to elders in the Jewish faith and the Christian leaders.

In the NT Jewish era an elder(presbyter) and a priest(hiereus) were 2 distinctly different roles. At the time of Ignatius, Christian leaders were called episkopos and presbyters - bishops and elders. Over the centuries elders began to be called priests as some various ideas were evolving.

I did offer this earlier. The Greek word 'IEREUS was a person who ministered in the 'IERON and has been translated ‘priest’. This should not be confused with the PRESBUTEROS who is the Christian ‘priest’ of the NAOS.

The question is then why did the Catholic Christian Church refer to themselves as “elder priests” rather than simply “ministerial priests”. The answer can be found at the root of the problem. God chose the firstborn as the “priest to God”, but this got taken away from them they were stripped of that privilege and it got passed on to the tribal “Levitical priesthood”.

Jesus Christ came to fix that which went wrong. This old mistake was fixed and was reverted in the New Testament, an “elder priest”, by Jesus Christ, as God originally intended the ministering over the “dwelling of God” (NAOS temple).

The priest is an “elder priest” in the “house of God”, the covenant is familial, as planned by God.

Please understand the difference between 'IERON and NAOS.

 

[Abu]

susanlo #241
They had bishops and deacons, but they didn’t have Christian priests yet.

False.

In the Acts of the Apostles (14:23) Saints Paul and Barnabas “appointed presbyters (=priests) for them in every church.” Paul and Barnabas were bishops who had received at ordination the power to ordain others. In Greek the words used were *presbyteros *for priest, elder, presbyter, and episcopos for bishop, overseer, supervisor, or guardian. By the time of St Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107) he speaks of the bishop as one who has “acquired his ministry, not from himself, nor through men”, and that he is to be regarded “as the Lord Himself.” (Ep. Ad Philad., 1; Ephes. 6).

St. Ignatius was the third bishop of Antioch and was martyred in Rome in approximately 107 A.D. His letter comes from about 96 A.D. Even at this early date, the threefold hierarchy of bishops, priests (presbyters in Greek), and deacons is present and the practice of celebrating the Holy Eucharist is clearly a long-established practice.

“The substance of the record contained in the Ignatian epistles is this:
While the Christian communities of this period (c.100-110) have many presbyters and deacons, they have only one bishop….there are bishops and the faithful are to obey both the bishops and the presbyters.” The New Biblical Theorists, Msgr George A Kelly, Servant Books, 1983, p 78].

Cardinal Lawrence Shehan says that the NT is not a book of neat linguistics. He cites the New American Bible, Hinds, Noble and Eldredge’s Greek English Dictionary, the English Jerusalem Bible, Goodspeed’s translation of the Chicago Bible, Kleist-Lilly, Joseph Fitzmer, SJ, and Fr Andre Feuillet’s The Priesthood of Christ and His Ministers as all acknowledging priests or priesthood in the NT under a variety of terms – presbuteroi, leitourgos, hierourgos, Leitourgon, Leitourgon hierougounta. **"The absence of the use of the one term hierus is evidence merely that this one term was not used, not that priest or priesthood are unacknowledged in the NT." [See *The New Biblical Theorists, Servant Books, 1983, by Msgr George A Kelly, p 84].
[My bold].

 

[benhur]

Here’s the version of the Didache I use The Didache (c. 100)

As an aside, the Church talked about here is the Catholic Church. So this is warning, don’t divide (go into schism) from the Catholic Church. No one should desire to go into schism. All effort should be made to gain peace.

Chapter 4. Various Precepts

"My child, him that speaks to you the word of God remember night and day; and you shall honour him as the Lord; for in the place whence lordly rule is uttered, there is the Lord. And you shall seek out day by day the faces of the saints, in order that you may rest upon their words. You shall not long for division, but shall bring those who contend to peace. You shall judge righteously, you shall not respect persons in reproving for transgressions. You shall not be undecided whether it shall be or no. Be not a stretcher forth of the hands to receive and a drawer of them back to give. If you have anything, through your hands you shall give ransom for your sins. You shall not hesitate to give, nor murmur when you give; for you shall know who is the good repayer of the hire. You shall not turn away from him that is in want, but you shall share all things with your brother, and shall not say that they are your own; for if you are partakers in that which is immortal, how much more in things which are mortal? You shall not remove your hand from your son or from your daughter, but from their youth shall teach them the fear of God. You shall not enjoin anything in your bitterness upon your bondman or maidservant, who hope in the same God, lest ever they shall fear not God who is over both; for he comes not to call according to the outward appearance, but unto them whom the Spirit has prepared. And you bondmen shall be subject to your masters as to a type of God, in modesty and fear. You shall hate all hypocrisy and everything which is not pleasing to the Lord. Forsake in no way the commandments of the Lord; but you shall keep what you have received, neither adding thereto nor taking away therefrom . In the church you shall acknowledge your transgressions, and you shall not come near for your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life.

Look at the passage underlined leading up to the passage you reference (in red).

Honor who as the Lord? Almost sounds like one of Ignatius letters Epistle to the Smyrnæans , ch’s 8-9.

Hi steve,

“4:4 Thou shalt not make a schism, but thou shalt pacify them that contend;”

earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-lightfoot.html

Again, the responsibility seems to be with the church. Of course we are to listen and obey our pastors, but not blindly. It must be "Lordly rule ".

Blessings

 

[benhur]

FONT=Century Gothic]*
Not to presume to speak for Cyril of Canada’s points,

One could point out the following instructions from Jesus *

*Matt 10:5These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And preach as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’

Matt 15: 22 And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and cried, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon.” 23 But he did not answer her a word.And his disciples came and begged him, saying, “Send her away, for she is crying after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

picking just these points

• The sheep of the house of Israel were LOST .
• only NOW is ‘The kingdom of heaven at hand.’ for THEM ( the lost sheep)

One could ask these questions

1. • Who are those sheep, and why are they LOST?
   • The kingdom only happens for THEM (the lost sheep) if they do something. What then must they do?
   • If they don’t do that something, are they still lost?

1. 
   Hi s,
   
   Understand. Jesus says to all they must be born of the spirit, be born again, believe on whom God has sent, believe on their Messiah, etc etc., and later "repent (from unbelief ) and be baptized. One is lost otherwise
   

   Re: reformers

   can you define the difference between “reformers” and Great Heresies

   Again, yes, that is knowing the difference between a Korah and a true prophet. The church and the congregation must respond to both and that discerningly.
   
   Your question is too big for this post, but generally speaking the CC views the reformation as pure heresy, and the reformers see themselves as the outcast prophets, as were done to the old.
   
   Blessings

 

[benhur]

]The absence of the use of the one term *hierus *is evidence merely that this one term was not used, not that priest or priesthood are unacknowledged in the NT."

[See *The New Biblical Theorists, Servant Books, 1983, by Msgr George A Kelly, p 84].
[My bold].Hi Abu

It seems like a nonsensical statement if I ever heard one.

Thankfully they admit heirus was not used, but then turn around and say , “so what?”

Presbyter does not equal heirus. Thusly it should not be dismissed so cavalierly.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

I did offer this earlier. The Greek word 'IEREUS was a person who ministered in the 'IERON and has been translated ‘priest’. This should not be confused with the PRESBUTEROS who is the Christian ‘priest’ of the NAOS.

The question is then why did the Catholic Christian Church refer to themselves as “elder priests” rather than simply “ministerial priests”. The answer can be found at the root of the problem. God chose the firstborn as the “priest to God”, but this got taken away from them they were stripped of that privilege and it got passed on to the tribal “Levitical priesthood”.

Jesus Christ came to fix that which went wrong. This old mistake was fixed and was reverted in the New Testament, an “elder priest”, by Jesus Christ, as God originally intended the ministering over the “dwelling of God” (NAOS temple).

The priest is an “elder priest” in the “house of God”, the covenant is familial, as planned by God.

Please understand the difference between 'IERON and NAOS.

Hi D,

Thank you, a bit above my forte , but will only add that go a step further into original intent , of every believer being an heirus ( a nation of priests, not just of Aaron or Levi) Peter cites restoration of this original intent.

Blessings