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

  • Thread starter Thread starter PJM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
benhur #308
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.
Here are the facts.

PRESBYTER. In the early Church a member of a group (usually of priests) who advised a bishop. Together they formed the presbytery, which, under a bishop, was the governing body of a community. The presbyter having no official duties, he was often commissioned by the bishop to teach, celebrate Mass, and baptize. Presbyters were usually of advanced age and, like a bishop, chosen by the people. Their rank was above that of deacons but inferior to that of bishops. There was no restriction on their number
**Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

Catholic Apologetics Online
radioreplies.info/site-search.php?q=Presbyter&db=4
98. Without mentioning priests, the New Testament describes as the only officials in the Church pastors, evangelists, teachers, apostles, prophets, bishops, Presbyters and deacons.
Those words include both those who received special gifts from God in the early Church, and those who received from the twelve Apostles by priestly ordination a definite ministerial authority. Christ instituted a priesthood in the persons of the Apostles, plainly intending it to endure till the end of the world. At the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles their official position stands with unquestioned authority. They ordained “Presbyters” (priests) and deacons by the laying on of hands. Less than 60 years later, when the danger of misunderstanding the word “priest” for which “Presbyter” was used had ceased, we find St. Ignatius of Antioch speaking clearly of the threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons. Act Mag, VI, 1. Under the guidance of the Holy Ghost these emerged as the official hierarchy left by the Apostles as provision for the future administration of the Church. And this was unanimously accepted throughout the whole Church right down to its denial in the 16th century by the Protestant reformers; and it is still accepted, of course, by the Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Churches, comprising between them the overwhelming majority of professing Christians. The Protestant denial is based on a lack of understanding both of Scripture and history, and on prejudices inherited from the early Protestant reformers. The whole subject cries out for earnest reconsideration by Protestants who are still sufficiently interested in "Christianity to want it in its genuine form. [My bold].

99. Is not “Elder” the right translation of the Greek word “Presbyter”?
In the strictly literal sense of the word in the Greek language, yes; but not technically in the sense in which Christians understood it when they used it. They intended a “priest” in the Catholic sense of the word - one who possessed a truly priestly office not possessed by the laity.
 
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
The Jewish model had elders and priests. The elders (firstborn) were not permitted in the old covenant from performing their proper role as priests. This was stripped from them by God because of the golden calf. This has been changed in the nt where the elder has had the rightful priestly ministry restored to them. Something greater than an 'ierus a different order of priest.

Absolutely we all serve minister in the Kingdom of God, and one would hope this isn’t considered a license of equality of roles.
 
Also incidentally, the restoration of the elder priesthood order seems to have been fully understood by the authors of the NT from day dot, right throughout history and only in the last 200 years protestantism has developed an amnesia to it.
 
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
Yes, and there is no question that a lot of that rule at the time of the Reformation lacked the fruit of the Spirit.

Perhaps the division had existed too much for too long, though, because by Luther’s time, it was not possible anymore to pacify him. Those that were sent to talk to him/reason with him reached a quick impasse. He became more and more stubborn and intractible, and engaged in behaviors that made the schism wider. By the time he was excommunicated, he already had no use for unity with the successor of Peter anymore.

The work is left for us, then to pacify, and heal the wounds to unity that still exist.
 
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.
But are all of the 1st century presbyters and the modern day Christian priests first-born sons and descendants of the Israelites? I don’t think they are the same group that would qualify as the original OT priests. 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 list qualifications for presbyters(elders) and overseers and being first-born isn’t one of them. The elder and overseer are often used interchangeably, and I think this is a new type of leadership.

The Jews had wise and respected elders(presbyters) and a separate group of hiereus who performed sacrifices. Which role were the new Christian leaders to be associated with?
 
But are all of the 1st century presbyters and the modern day Christian priests first-born sons and descendants of the Israelites? I don’t think they are the same group that would qualify as the original OT priests.
Try thinking outside the box a little. Apostolic Succession. As I have said many times the original intention of God was the elder within the family unit to be the primary priestly order. My family is my parish. This is my spiritual family unit. First-born elder is ordination. For Israel this priestly role got taken off them because of the golden calf. The role did not exist in the OT, it was supposed to but it was aborted. It was reintroduced seamlessly into the NT as an obvious understood God appointed institution.
 
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
Certainly God always intended for Israel to mediate Him to the world, but this did not happen. As the royal priesthood, members of the Church now can partake in the ministry of reconciling the world to Christ.
Code:
 But are all of the 1st century presbyters and the modern day Christian priests first-born sons and descendants of the Israelites? I don't think they are the same group that would qualify as the original OT priests.
No one is suggesting that they do. Jesus has created a new priestly order, after Melchizedech. Those who serve as priests in the Church are caught up into His priesthood, they don’t receive it by birth or by lot. The OT provides a shadow of what was to come.
1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 list qualifications for presbyters(elders) and overseers and being first-born isn’t one of them. The elder and overseer are often used interchangeably, and I think this is a new type of leadership.
There were always "elders’ in the Jewish community, though they did not all have official duties. There were many Rabbi’s that were not part of Orders or the Sanhedrin. Christian elders might actually be very young, as Timothy was, but were “elder” in the faith, having been well formed by Apostolic teaching. All of the first Christains were Jews, and many of them had a very solid faith formation. When the Apostles chose and ordained the first group of Deacons, they chose those who already had a solid faith.

"They presented these seven to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them. 7So the word of God continued to spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem grew rapidly, and a great number of priests became obedient to the faith.Acts 6:7

The "priests’ mentioned here (ἱερέων) converted to Christianity. Naturally they did not have the Jewish priestly duties anymore, especially after the destruction of the temple, and most of them probably did not become “presybteros”. There is nothing in the text to indicate they did.
The Jews had wise and respected elders(presbyters) and a separate group of hiereus who performed sacrifices. Which role were the new Christian leaders to be associated with?
I think you are right about the respected elders in the community. Since Christ offered the once for all sacrifice, there were no more animals to be slaughtered.

The first Christians, though, did still follow the pattern of the Jewish synagogue service, In fact, when one attends Synagogue today, and compares it to the Mass, one will find great overlap. It is easy to see how that Jewish liturgical pattern was infused with the Christian practice of the Eucharist.

One of the best ways to see the role of the presbyter is to read Justin Martyr describing the early Liturgy. He refers to the “presider” as well as other roles that still exist in the Liturgy today. Chapter 67 has a description very close to what we still celebrate.
 
One of the best ways to see the role of the presbyter is to read Justin Martyr describing the early Liturgy. He refers to the “presider” as well as other roles that still exist in the Liturgy today. Chapter 67 has a description very close to what we still celebrate.
Yes, this sounds like the worship of most all Christian churches. Scripture reading, teaching, communion and offering. The only thing he doesn’t mention in this is music.
 
Yes, this sounds like the worship of most all Christian churches. Scripture reading, teaching, communion and offering. The only thing he doesn’t mention in this is music.
One does have to wonder what type of singing/music there was. It was typical to sing the Psalms, Canticles or other hymns outside of the liturgy as well.

I think one of the differences from most evangelical services today is that the early church was accused of “drowning their babies and eating their God”. The charge of cannabilism although spurious, does attest the belief in the Real Presence.
 
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
Let’s put a specific example to work here.

“Schism (from the Greek schisma, rent, division) is, in the language of theology and canon law, the rupture of ecclesiastical union and unity, i.e. either the act by which one of the faithful severs as far as in him lies the ties which bind him to the social organization of the Church and make him a member of the mystical body of Christ, or the state of dissociation or separation which is the result of that act. In this etymological and full meaning the term occurs in the books of the New Testament. By this name St Paul characterizes and condemns the parties formed in the community of Corinth (1 Corinthians 1:12): “I beseech you, brethren”, he writes, “. . . that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment” (ibid., i, 10). The union of the Faithful, he says elsewhere, should manifest itself in mutual understanding and convergent action similar to the harmonious co-operation of our members which God hath tempered “that there might be no schism in the body” (1 Corinthians 12:25). Thus understood, schism is a genus which embraces two distinct species: heretical or mixed schism and schism pure and simple. The first has its source in heresy or joined with it, the second, which most theologians designate absolutely as schism, is the rupture of the bond of subordination without an accompanying persistent error, directly opposed to a definite dogma. This distinction was drawn by St Jerome and St Augustine. “Between heresy and schism”, explains St Jerome, "there is this difference, that heresy perverts dogma, while schism, by rebellion against the bishop, separates from the Church. Nevertheless there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church (In Ep. ad Tit., iii, 10). And St Augustine: “By false doctrines concerning God heretics wound faith, by iniquitous dissensions schismatics deviate from fraternal charity, although they believe what we believe” ( 9On Faith and the Creed). But as St Jerome remarks, practically and historically, heresy and schism nearly always go hand in hand; schism leads almost invariably to denial of the papal primacy.”

From newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm
 
One does have to wonder what type of singing/music there was. It was typical to sing the Psalms, Canticles or other hymns outside of the liturgy as well.

I think one of the differences from most evangelical services today is that the early church was accused of “drowning their babies and eating their God”. The charge of cannabilism although spurious, does attest the belief in the Real Presence.
I think the language regarding all types of Eucharist could lead to a misunderstanding. All Christians state they are consuming body and blood whether or not they think the substances of the objects change. A woman at church a few weeks ago said the first time she went to a church they were singing “Thank you for the blood…” and she was creeped out and didn’t try another church for a few years.
 
I think the language regarding all types of Eucharist could lead to a misunderstanding. All Christians state they are consuming body and blood whether or not they think the substances of the objects change. A woman at church a few weeks ago said the first time she went to a church they were singing “Thank you for the blood…” and she was creeped out and didn’t try another church for a few years.
LOL I can understand that!

I had the same experience when I attended my first baptist fellowship and they were singing about being “washed in the blood”.
 
Certainly God always intended for Israel to mediate Him to the world, but this did not happen. As the royal priesthood, members of the Church now can partake in the ministry of reconciling the world to Christ.

No one is suggesting that they do. Jesus has created a new priestly order, after Melchizedech. Those who serve as priests in the Church are caught up into His priesthood, they don’t receive it by birth or by lot. The OT provides a shadow of what was to come.

There were always "elders’ in the Jewish community, though they did not all have official duties. There were many Rabbi’s that were not part of Orders or the Sanhedrin. Christian elders might actually be very young, as Timothy was, but were “elder” in the faith, having been well formed by Apostolic teaching. All of the first Christains were Jews, and many of them had a very solid faith formation. When the Apostles chose and ordained the first group of Deacons, they chose those who already had a solid faith.

"They presented these seven to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them. 7So the word of God continued to spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem grew rapidly, and a great number of priests became obedient to the faith.Acts 6:7

The "priests’ mentioned here (ἱερέων) converted to Christianity. Naturally they did not have the Jewish priestly duties anymore, especially after the destruction of the temple, and most of them probably did not become “presybteros”. There is nothing in the text to indicate they did.

I think you are right about the respected elders in the community. Since Christ offered the once for all sacrifice, there were no more animals to be slaughtered.

The first Christians, though, did still follow the pattern of the Jewish synagogue service, In fact, when one attends Synagogue today, and compares it to the Mass, one will find great overlap. It is easy to see how that Jewish liturgical pattern was infused with the Christian practice of the Eucharist.

One of the best ways to see the role of the presbyter is to read Justin Martyr describing the early Liturgy. He refers to the “presider” as well as other roles that still exist in the Liturgy today. Chapter 67 has a description very close to what we still celebrate.
Yes , I like the word "presider’ or some have "president’…Certainly not priests or presbyter or bishop, though not disqualified as presider.
 
Hi s,

Understand. Jesus says to all they must be born of the spirit, be born again,
IOW Jesus is talking about baptism Born Again in Baptism
b:
**believe **on whom God has sent, **believe **on their Messiah, etc etc.,
Even the demons believe that.

Belief requires correct Action not words. No correct actions behind belief, and belief is dead. ( St James paraphrased James 2:17-20 )
b:
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
Division in what He established is condemned.John 17:20-23

Division is not from God but Satan

#53 , #55 , #97 , #118

#122
 
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.
The Apostles taught that being “born again” happened in Baptism. Infants were baptized because they understood this to be the entrance rite into the Kingdom, as circumcision was the entrance rite in the OT.
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.
Yes. This is why it is so important to realize that the Holy Spirit does not lead the Body in the opposite direction than He has led before.
Your question is too big for this post, but generally speaking the CC views the reformation as pure heresy
This is not only false, but quite prejudiced. I think it is true, though, about certain Catholics. I have seen a number of them here at CAF. The CC does not have this view, so Catholics who hold it are not in conformity with the Church teaching.
Blessings
Does it really make sense to promote such falsehoods, then purport blessings?
 
Those who might feel that people are probably just fine where they are and never even give them a reason to consider Catholicism, might unwittingly be neglecting their role as the person God sent to invite them to a life of eternal happiness.

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is not alone in understanding the necessity of offering Christ’s Church to all.

Pope Benedict Breaks His Silence On “Deep Crisis”
By Steve Skojec on March 16, 2016

onepeterfive.com/pope-benedict-breaks-his-silence-on-deep-crisis/
“On March 16, speaking publicly on a rare occasion, Pope Benedict XVI gave an interview to Avvenire, the daily newspaper of the Italian Bishops’ Conference, in which he spoke of a “two-sided deep crisis” the Church is facing in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. The report has already hit Germany courtesy of Vaticanist Guiseppe Nardi, of the German Catholic news website Katholisches.info.

“Pope Benedict reminds us of the formerly indispensable Catholic conviction of the possibility of the loss of eternal salvation, or that people go to hell:”

‘The missionaries of the 16th century were convinced that the unbaptized person is lost forever. After the [Second Vatican] Council, this conviction was definitely abandoned. The result was a two-sided, deep crisis. Without this attentiveness to the salvation, the Faith loses its foundation.

‘He also speaks of a “profound evolution of Dogma” with respect to the Dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church. This purported change of dogma has led, in the pope’s eyes, to a loss of the missionary zeal in the Church – “any motivation for a future missionary commitment was removed.” Pope Benedict asks the piercing question that arose after this palpable change of attitude of the Church: “Why you should try to convince the people to accept the Christian faith when they can be saved even without it?” As to the other consequences of this new attitude in the Church, the Catholics themselves, in Benedict’s eyes, were less attached to their Faith: If there are those who can save their souls with other means, “why should the the Christian be bound to the necessity of the Christian Faith and its morality?” asked the pope. And he concludes: “But if Faith and Salvation are not any more interdependent, even Faith becomes less motivating.”

‘Pope Benedict also refutes both the idea of the “anonymous Christian” as developed by Karl Rahner, as well as the indifferentist idea that all religions are equally valuable and helpful to attain eternal life. He says: “Even less acceptable is the solution proposed by the pluralistic theories of religion, for which all religions, each in its own way, would be ways of salvation and, in this sense, must be considered equivalent in their effects.” ’
 
This is not only false, but quite prejudiced
Hi g,

Well my apologies and glad to heary ou think it is false (that the CC says reformation was pure heresy). I only went by the site you provided on “Great Heresies”. Here is how our conversation went:

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

“Your question is too big for this post, but generally speaking the CC views the reformation as pure heresy”- me, after reading your article
"
"This is not only false, but quite prejudiced…The CC does not have this view" - you

“With this in mind, let’s look at some of the *major heresies *of Church history and when they began :… *Protestantism *(16th Century)” - your suggested site.

Is my falsehood or misreading then because of the word "pure’? OK if so I take that back and put in what article said , “major” heresy.

I am also leery when someone cries “false” but does not give what is “true”.

So, then if Luther and Calvin and Huss did not deal in heresy, then per your question they must be “reformers” ? Those were the two options in the question.
Does it really make sense to promote such falsehoods, then purport blessings?
You are right. I am having a hard time with your “style”. I sensed I was "abrupt’’ with my answer, and just tired of how to put a congenial end to the post. Blessings is all I could come up with, sorry. And it was genuine because I did not see falsehood in my answer (hard, combative, yes).

Understand there is a whole other thread on this very topic. Catholics are divided on just how to now go forward, and how best to view the Reformation with that in mind.

Again, my response to your question was haste, and only took in to consideration your sited article on heresy. Apologies.

Blessings, really 🙂
 
Code:
 Hi g,
Well my apologies and glad to heary ou think it is false (that the CC says reformation was pure heresy). I only went by the site you provided on “Great Heresies”. Here is how our conversation went:

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

“Your question is too big for this post, but generally speaking the CC views the reformation as pure heresy”- me, after reading your article
I think you are confused. These statements are all from a conversatin you had with steveb and appear to come from post #297
"
Code:
**"This is not only false, but quite prejudiced...The CC does not have this view"** - you
“With this in mind, let’s look at some of the *major heresies *of Church history and when they began :… *Protestantism *(16th Century)” - your suggested site.
I found your comment that the CC views the whole of the reformation as one great heresy to be prejudiced and false. I did not suggest any sites.
Is my falsehood or misreading then because of the word "pure’? OK if so I take that back and put in what article said , “major” heresy.
I think it was steve that may have introduced the word pure.

Certainly there were, and are, major heresies during and as a result of the Reformation.
I am also leery when someone cries “false” but does not give what is “true”.
I have already posted that, but I can do it again if you like.

817 In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.” The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism - do not occur without human sin:
Code:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.
Code:
So, then if Luther and Calvin and Huss did not deal in heresy,  then per your question they must be "reformers" ? Those were the two options in the question.
It was not my question, but for the record, of course yes they dealt in heresies. They saw themselves as reformers. From their point of view, it was the CC that had fallen into heresy.
Code:
You are right. I am having a hard time with your "style". I sensed I was "abrupt'' with my answer, and just tired of how to put a congenial end to the post. Blessings is all I could come up with, sorry. And it was genuine because I did not see falsehood in my answer (hard, combative, yes).
Well, I think your arguement with Steve just spilled over on to me. I don’t agree that the Reformation was “all pure heresy” all the time, with everyone. I accept what is taught in the Catechism that people on both sides behaved badly, causing divisions.
Code:
Understand there is a whole other thread on this very topic. Catholics are divided on just how to now go forward, and how best to view the Reformation with that in mind.
Yes, but we need to keep working on it. Which thread is that?
Code:
 Again,  my response to your question was haste, and only took in to consideration your sited article on heresy. Apologies.
Blessings, really 🙂
Except it was not my citation and to be fair, I have not read the article.

Thank you for the blessings. 😃
 
I think you are confused. These statements are all from a conversatin you had with steveb and appear to come from post #297
"

I found your comment that the CC views the whole of the reformation as one great heresy to be prejudiced and false. I did not suggest any sites.

I think it was steve that may have introduced the word pure.

Certainly there were, and are, major heresies during and as a result of the Reformation.

I have already posted that, but I can do it again if you like.

817 In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.” The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism - do not occur without human sin:
Code:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.
It was not my question, but for the record, of course yes they dealt in heresies. They saw themselves as reformers. From their point of view, it was the CC that had fallen into heresy.

Well, I think your arguement with Steve just spilled over on to me. I don’t agree that the Reformation was “all pure heresy” all the time, with everyone. I accept what is taught in the Catechism that people on both sides behaved badly, causing divisions.

Yes, but we need to keep working on it. Which thread is that?

Except it was not my citation and to be fair, I have not read the article.

Thank you for the blessings. 😃
Hi g

LOL.

I told you towards the end of the post I was “tired”. Very humbling . Deserved it (getting you and steve mixed up) for getting too excitable/combative.

Blessings g

PS - Steve still has my 2 cents coming then…not!
 
I told you towards the end of the post I was “tired”. Very humbling . Deserved it (getting you and steve mixed up) for getting too excitable/combative.

Blessings g

PS - Steve still has my 2 cents coming then…not!
That is why we are all here, is it not? 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top