Personal interpretation clause

[PJM]

=BereanRuss;5036871]Don’t these two statements contradict each other? If you are not Catholic, you have no priest. No priest = no Jesus = no Church= No Salvation

It is also amazing to me that you would list the priest before Jesus in that statement, No priest = no Jesus = no Church= No Salvation

My dear freind in Christ, wonderful observation.:tiphat:

So was I in error? I think not, in the context of the post, which delt with the necessity of “priest.” in the Catholic Tradition.

I’m unclear as to where you see a contridiction, but will attempt a more detailed explaination.

Keep in mind at “base here” that evereything I share is supported by the bible, and that what I raise Catholic Beliefs are teachings of Jesus Chrsit Himself.

Lk. 22;"14 And when the hour came, he sat at table, and the apostles with him. 15 And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer; 16 for I tell you I shall not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves; 18* for I tell you that from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” (Picture) 20 And likewi

Catholic Teaching hold that in this one discourse two of the Seven Sacraments were “instituted by Christ”

Holy Orders (The Catholic Priesthood} with the words,"Do this in memory of Me."

And the “summit of the Catholic faith”, The Sacrament of Jesus Himself in Holy Communion… Take and eat THIS IS MY BODY; Take and drink THIS IS MY BLOOD.

One can find furher evidence in 1 Cor. 11: 23-26, Mt.26:26-28, Mk.14: 22-24, and
Jn. Ch.6: 40-60.

The reason the priest is listed first is to show the necessity of the Catholic Priesthood.

Following the Mandate of Jesus to “do this in my memory” tells us that the priesthood has a key role in making Jesus “really, truly, and substanually” present to us in catholic Holy Communion. While it is God Himself who works the double miracle, it is the priest that for a brief instant “becomes the very person of Christ” at the instant of Transubstanitation, makes “Jesus Himself” present to us.

So from God’s miracles (two) and through His priest we have “no priest= no Jesus”, and the balance flows from there.

Your statement of “if your not Catholic” you have “no Jesus” is only partially true.

The single most signifiant reason to be an informed, practicing Catholic is that we REALLY do have the same Jesus born of Mary, the same Jesus who died for us, The same Jesus who rose from the dead for our Redeemption, that very same Jesus, not a sign, not a symbol, but actually that very same Jesus in the Catholic Church.

Non-catholic-Christians have only “the Spiritual presence of Jesus.” So Jesus is available to all of all of the time, but not is the same manner. Like I said there are some very valid reasons to be a Catholic. Not bad, but clearly having the Real Jesus is better:thumbsup:

Hope this clarifies for you what I was sharing.

Love and prayers,

 

[PJM]

=BereanRuss;5037153]So then Jesus is dependant upon the priest? God is dependant upon man?

:tsktsk:Nope!:nope:

Let me ask you friend, does God ever “use you”?

Only God can **(and does)**make Jesus Present in Catholic Holy Communion, and ONLY God can forgive sins.

But God’s design, God’s plan is to use His Priest, in unique and miracalous roles, to effect these special graces.

Bibical based beliefs and practice = Catholic belief and practice!

 

[donalddon5]

So then Jesus is dependant upon the priest? God is dependant upon man?

You may think so but I do not think that God is dependent upon any man or at least not in the essence of existing. But if you intentionally use the word dependant instead of dependent I would offer the following reply for my argument:

Now how about the role of worship is Jesus dependant upon the priest. If you look at how the early Hebrew was sit up in relationship for the worship of God and how the Roman Catholic Church is set up for the relationship for the worship of God then indeed I would say that Jesus is fulfilling his own words about being Servant to all. Did he not wash the Disciples feet? Is this the role of a boss or someone that is dependent? In a very Miraculous way I would say, yes Jesus is dependant upon the priest and therefore God is dependant upon man at least for the worship part.

 

[donalddon5]

Thought this to be a nice addition to this wonderful debate:

catholicism.org/my-letter-to-a-protestant-objector.html#more-8950

 

[Jerry_Marino]

Perhaps that is because it is the priest who offers up Christ to God in the Eucharist. And did not Jesus put others first by the sacrificing of himself. So what is so amazing about that?

Hebrews 13:15 Therefore, let us offer through Jesus a continual sacrifice of praise to God, proclaiming our allegiance to his name.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I am not interested in reading articles. I am interested reasoning the scriptures. You are certainly welcome to bring out the major points from the articles in your posts.

Ah…another open-minded Bible Christian earnestly seeking the truth wherever he may find it. Would it be fair to say that if your pastor were to give a sermon on this same subject, you’d be lapping it up? But when a Catholic offers extensive explanations for something that you don’t agree with, you have no time to consider them.

Okay, try this Reader’s Digest version:

In the end, there are two texts of Scripture that you cannot escape. Attempting to find Protestant explanations for these texts only serves to solidify the Catholic understanding of confession and the priesthood. These two texts are John 20:21–23 and Matthew 16:18–19.

John 20:21-23
21Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

With regard to this passage, some Protestant scholars have attempted to evade the obvious by claiming that the perfect tense verbs “are forgiven” and “are retained” indicate that when Jesus said, “Whosoever sins you forgive are forgiven,” he actually meant whoever’s sins you forgive have already been forgiven, not through the ministry of the apostle but by God apart from the apostle. This is an example of reading into a text something that is simply not there.

The text is really quite plain. It tells us when the sins are forgiven: They are forgiven when the apostles forgive them. The Catholic Church is not saying that the apostles accomplish this by some magical powers or by their own power. Jesus “breathed on them” and gave them the power of the Holy Spirit to forgive sins. But the fact is that the apostles are the instruments of God’s forgiveness, and there can be no plainer example of a priestly function than this—except perhaps for the second text to be examined:

Matthew 16:18–19
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

All Catholics are well acquainted with this text and its implications for papal infallibility. Here Jesus promises Peter the power to proclaim the gospel on earth with the infallible authority of heaven to back him up. But less well known is that this text also refers to the forgiveness of sins (cf. CCC 553).

Both of these texts are talking about priestly functions; that is, Peter and his successors are promised the power to be mediators of both the message of God’s truth and the healing communicated through God’s forgiveness.

It is obvious that from these (and other passages) that Jesus established the New Testament priesthood in order that we might receive and participate in the sacraments.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Don’t these two statements contradict each other? If you are not Catholic, you have no priest. No priest = no Jesus = no Church= No Salvation

It is also amazing to me that you would list the priest before Jesus in that statement, No priest = no Jesus = no Church= No Salvation

Jesus is the head of the Body which is the Church. In order to be united with Christ, you must be united with His Body, the Church in some manner.

Yes, if you are not Catholic, your connection to the Body of Christ is imperfect and incomplete. You may be saved, but it is in spite of your situation and not because of it.

The poster suggests that apart from the priest there is no Jesus. Well, this is a yes and no situation. I will focus on the yes since this is what you have taken issue with. it is the priest (and more completely the Bishop) who makes Christ present in the sacraments. So, where there is no priest, there can be no Eucharist, no confession, etc.

And no, it is not sufficient that a couple of Bible Only Christians get together for prayer - this is not the Church.

Wherever two or three are gathered…**
**An Explanation of “Church” in light of Matthew 18:19-20

Non-denominational Christians often reject the concept of a structured, hierarchical Church led by bishops, priests and deacons. One of their common objections is that the “church” exists wherever two or three believers are gathered in His name. Is this really how the Bible defines the Church? Let’s take a closer look at the Word of God to see if this is true.

Matthew 18:19-20
19"Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

From this passage, many Christians conclude that the “church” is composed of small groups of believers that come together from time to time. While it is true that Jesus has promised to be with believers who are gathered in His name, it is obvious from another passage that this is not how Jesus Himself defines the Church.

In fact, just a few verses earlier, Jesus had given a fuller picture of the Church when He said:

Matthew 18:15-17
15"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”

If “two or three” believers gathered together really constitutes the “church” (as envisioned by those who reject “organized religion”), then it would not be necessary for us to refer the one who sins against us to “the church”. Doing so would be redundant! To the contrary, it is obvious in this passage that Jesus actually makes a clear distinction between the “two or three others” in verse 16 and “the church” in verse 17.

Clearly, Jesus does not consider that “two or three” constitute the Church that He Himself would build. Neither should we. Beginning with Peter, the rock, and the apostles, Jesus has built the Church just as He promised through their successors—the bishops, priests and deacons of the Catholic Church.

 

[donalddon5]

Hebrews 13:15 Therefore, let us offer through Jesus a continual sacrifice of praise to God, proclaiming our allegiance to his name.

Absolutely and not only by the scriptures but also by tradition:

Preface (giving praise and thanksgiving to God) in the Mass by the Holy Priest of Jesus:

Father, it is our duty and salvation, always and everywhere to give you thanks through your beloved Son, Jesus Christ.

He is the Word through whom you made the universe, the Savior you sent to redeem us. By the power of the Holy Spirit he too flesh and was born of the Virgin Mary.

For our sake he opened his arms on the cross; he put an end to death and revealed the resurrection. In this he fulfilled your will and won for you a holy people.

And so we join the angels and saints in proclaiming your glory

 

[Randy_Carson]

So then Jesus is dependant upon the priest? God is dependant upon man?

Not that He is limited in the this way, but in the sense that He chooses to work through men, yes.

Why is this a scandal? God has chose to use men and women throughout the course of history.

Noah
Moses
Lots of prophets
David
Mary
Peter
Paul, etc.

You get the idea.

Why, God even chose to work through humanity by becoming a man Himself.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hebrews 13:15 Therefore, let us offer through Jesus a continual sacrifice of praise to God, proclaiming our allegiance to his name.

Amen! Catholics love that verse as we do all 73 books of the Bible.

So, what is the problem here?

 

[Jerry_Marino]

it don’t say we offer up Christ though, i just don’t see it. did not Jesus give up His body for sacrifice?

and to say we offer up Christ, just doesn’t fit right with me.

God bless

 

[donalddon5]

it don’t say we offer up Christ though, i just don’t see it. did not Jesus give up His body for sacrifice?

and to say we offer up Christ, just doesn’t fit right with me.

God bless

I see what you mean. The best way I know how to explain it is that the offering takes the place of the Old Convenant. Christ did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill the law and a New Convenant is form but the laws are not abolish. Remember when the High Priest rips his clothes and claim that Jesus blasphemy and then the temple curtain was torn when Jesus was upon the Cross. This is all in the fulfillment of the Old Convenant and is the reason it is said the law was not abolish but fulfill. Only God could have fulfilled the law. However, none of this invalidated the rituals. Now the Kingdom of God was taken from the Jewish Priests and given to the Gentiles. After this all of the rituals are base on that New Convenant. In other words the Kingdom of God was not and is not something that can be spiritualized away by saying it is invisible but it is a Church. All that is in the Old Convenant is in the New Convenant. Priests, Sacrifice of the lamb (continuous for each Mass)…etc.

Taking is the first of the Eucharistic actions. While the Western Church in the past emphasized the bread and wine which are transformed, originally the Hebrew context stressed the actions themselves. Thus the Eucharist is often referred to in Scripture not in terms of the bread and wine but as actions of taking, blessing, breaking and sharing. The early Church commonly referred to the Eucharist as the “breaking of bread.”

When he has received the gifts the priest prepares them, reciting prayers patterned on the ancient Jewish Kiddish of the Passover meal: “Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, Creator of the fruit of the earth. The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof.” The priest then adds a drop of water to the wine- a tradition from the 1st Church who considered it symbolic of the union of Christ’s humanity and divinity, or of Christ with his Church.

The priest then washes his hands as did the Jewish leaders before the ritual meal. This action has also taken on symbolic significance. The priest prays, “Lord wash away my iniquity, cleanse me from my sins.” The presider invites the people to prayer: they respond. The rite concludes with a short prayer over the gifts.

B). Eucharistic Prayer: Now at the very heart of the Eucharist, this prayer in some aspect antedates Christianity itself. Its model is derived from the Jewish Berakah or blessing prayer. Berakah prayer generally praises and blesses God for all the wonderful gifts of creation. The celebrant gives thanks to God in imagery appropriate to the day or season and the “Holy, Holy, Holy” is sung or recited by the community.

Now in a longer prayer of thanksgiving, the priest on behalf of all gives thanks to God for Christ. He askes the Father to send the Holy Spirit upon the gifts of bread and wine transforming them into Christ’s body and blood. This invocation is known as the epiclesis.

The institution narrative recalls the Last Supper which in essence, go back to Jesus himself. Even Paul quotes these words as tradition. The institution narrative leads the people to acclaim their faith in one of four different acclamations. The people are not simple observers but active participants in the mystery being celebrated.

 

[donalddon5]

oops, the above was copyrighted: © Copyright 2002 – MTBearz Enterprises®
All Rights Reserved
The title was: The Roman Catholic Mass Explored & Explained
The SHORT VERSION

 

[bradwill911]

So then Jesus is dependant upon the priest? God is dependant upon man?

I think I said earlier that the priest is the means by which the sacraments, as established by Christ, are gifted to His Church. God uses man as he has since Genesis (as others have stated in this thread).

Is God dependent on the Bible to bring us His Word? Or is the Bible his means of spreading the Gospel?

God is not dependent on man. Could God drop manna from heaven to feed the hungry? Could God clothe the naked and provide housing for the homeless? Is God dependent on man to do these things? If you are unable to see what you are arguing here, I’m afraid that it is because of your own anti-Catholic bias.

Peace be with you.

 

[donalddon5]

it don’t say we offer up Christ though, i just don’t see it. did not Jesus give up His body for sacrifice?

and to say we offer up Christ, just doesn’t fit right with me.

God bless

Also, I came across this:

1336 The first announcement of the Eucharist divided the disciples, just as the announcement of the Passion scandalized them: "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"160 The Eucharist and the Cross are stumbling blocks. It is the same mystery and it never ceases to be an occasion of division. “Will you also go away?”:161 the Lord’s question echoes through the ages, as a loving invitation to discover that only he has "the words of eternal life"162 and that to receive in faith the gift of his Eucharist is to receive the Lord himself. Reference: vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm

Just curious, what is your decision? Personally, I am not a Roman Catholic yet but after being led to them by the Holy Spirit and studying, I can not denied that that are the One True Church of Jesus Christ, a house full of sinners but yet a Most Holy and Chosen Children of God.

 

[BereanRuss]

The reason the priest is listed first is to show the necessity of the Catholic Priesthood.

The priesthood is not necessary which is why there is no instructions in the NT for a second earthly priesthood.

… who has first given to Him And it shall be repaid to him? [Rom 11:25]

God will never be indebted to any man. Any theology that puts any man before God is a blasphemous theology. Any theology that makes God a liar is a blasphemous theology. Catholic theology does this on many levels.

 

[BereanRuss]

yes Jesus is dependant upon the priest and therefore God is dependant upon man at least for the worship part.

GOD IS NOT DEPENDANT UPON MAN FOR ANYTHING. GOD WILL NEVER BE A DEBTOR TO ANY MAN.

Any theology that has God dependant upon man is the wrong theology. Any theology that makes God a liar is from the devil for the devil is the father of all lies.

When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. [John 8:44]

 

[bradwill911]

If you read my post below, God is not dependent on man, but as others have pointed out, God uses man. The priest is the means that God uses to present the gift of the sacraments. God could have chosen another means.

As my other reply asks, is God dependent on the Bible to get His Word out? Or, is the Bible a means for spreading the Gospel? God does not depend on the Bible.

Is God dependent on man to feed the hungry? Could God in his infinite power simply will that the hungry be fed? Of course. God does not depend on man to feed the hungry.

Is God dependent on man to give drink to the thirsty or clothe the naked? I think we both know that God is not dependent on man. God uses man to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, etc. Do you see the difference?**

 

[Randy_Carson]

The priesthood is not necessary which is why there is no instructions in the NT for a second earthly priesthood.

… who has first given to Him And it shall be repaid to him? [Rom 11:25]

God will never be indebted to any man. Any theology that puts any man before God is a blasphemous theology. Any theology that makes God a liar is a blasphemous theology. Catholic theology does this on many levels.

Until you prove this charge, I say that you are bearing false witness against your Catholic brothers and sisters - a grave sin.

As for the NT priesthood, it was established by Christ Himself.

Bishop, Priest and Deacon

catholic.com/library/Bishop_Priest_and_Deacon.asp

The sacrament of holy orders is conferred in three ranks of clergy: bishops, priests, and deacons.

Bishops (episcopoi) have the care of multiple congregations and appoint, ordain, and discipline priests and deacons. They sometimes appear to be called “evangelists” in the New Testament. Examples of first-century bishops include Timothy and Titus (1 Tim. 5:19–22; 2 Tim. 4:5; Titus 1:5).

Priests (presbuteroi) are also known as “presbyters” or “elders.” In fact, the English term “priest” is simply a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros. They have the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15).

Deacons (diakonoi) are the assistants of the bishops and are responsible for teaching and administering certain Church tasks, such as the distribution of food (Acts 6:1–6).

In the apostolic age, the terms for these offices were still somewhat fluid. Sometimes a term would be used in a technical sense as the title for an office, sometimes not. This non-technical use of the terms even exists today, as when the term is used in many churches (both Protestant and Catholic) to refer to either ordained ministers (as in “My minister visited him”) or non-ordained individuals. (In a Protestant church one might hear “He is a worship minister,” while in a Catholic church one might hear “He is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.”)

Thus, in the apostolic age Paul sometimes described himself as a diakonos (“servant” or “minister”; cf. 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph. 3:7), even though he held an office much higher than that of a deacon, that of apostle.

Similarly, on one occasion Peter described himself as a “fellow elder,” [1 Pet. 5:1] even though he, being an apostle, also had a much higher office than that of an ordinary elder.

The term for bishop, *episcopos *(“overseer”), was also fluid in meaning. Sometimes it designated the overseer of an individual congregation (the priest), sometimes the person who was the overseer of all the congregations in a city or area (the bishop or evangelist), and sometimes simply the highest-ranking clergyman in the local church—who could be an apostle, if one were staying there at the time.

Although the terms “bishop,” “priest,” and “deacon” were somewhat fluid in the apostolic age, by the beginning of the second century they had achieved the fixed form in which they are used today to designate the three offices whose functions are clearly distinct in the New Testament.

 

[Randy_Carson]

GOD IS NOT DEPENDANT UPON MAN FOR ANYTHING. GOD WILL NEVER BE A DEBTOR TO ANY MAN.

Any theology that has God dependant upon man is the wrong theology. Any theology that makes God a liar is from the devil for the devil is the father of all lies.

When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. [John 8:44]

Oh, I get it. If you say is often enough and LOUD ENOUGH, that will make your argument persuasive?

Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of the Apostle Peter and succeeded him as Bishop of Antioch. After his arrest in 107 A.D., he was taken to Rome where he was martyred. On his journey, he had time to write seven letters which survive to this day, and they provide interesting insight into the teaching and practices of the early Christian Church.

Here is what Ignatius had to say regarding Bishops, Priests and Deacons:

Ignatius of Antioch

“Now, therefore, it has been my privilege to see you in the person of your God-inspired bishop, Damas; and in the persons of your worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius; and my fellow-servant, the deacon, Zotion. What a delight is his company! For he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ” (*Letter to the Magnesians *2 [A.D. 107]).

“Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest” (ibid., 6:1).

“Take care, therefore, to be confirmed in the decrees of the Lord and of the apostles, in order that in everything you do, you may prosper in body and in soul, in faith and in love, in Son and in Father and in Spirit, in beginning and in end, together with your most reverend bishop; and with that fittingly woven spiritual crown, the presbytery; and with the deacons, men of God. Be subject to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was subject to the Father, and the apostles were subject to Christ and to the Father; so that there may be unity in both body and spirit” (ibid., 13:1–2).

“Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in his death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore—and such is your practice that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found, if we live in him. It is necessary also that the deacons, the dispensers of the mysteries [sacraments] of Jesus Christ, be in every way pleasing to all men. For they are not the deacons of food and drink, but servants of the Church of God. They must therefore guard against blame as against fire” (*Letter to the Trallians *2:1–3 [A.D. 107]).

“In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a church. I am confident that you accept this, for I have received the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his meekness is his strength. I believe that even the godless do respect him” (ibid., 3:1–2).

“He that is within the sanctuary is pure; but he that is outside the sanctuary is not pure. In other words, anyone who acts without the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons does not have a clear conscience” (ibid., 7:2).

“I cried out while I was in your midst, I spoke with a loud voice, the voice of God: ‘Give heed to the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons.’ Some suspect me of saying this because I had previous knowledge of the division certain persons had caused; but he for whom I am in chains is my witness that I had no knowledge of this from any man. It was the Spirit who kept preaching these words, ‘Do nothing without the bishop, keep your body as the temple of God, love unity, flee from divisions, be imitators of Jesus Christ, as he was imitator of the Father’” (Letter to the Philadelphians 7:1–2 [A.D. 107]).

Seems that the early Church knew all about “New Testament Priests.”