Please give me the name of the man, or men, that founded the Catholic Church, and when...

[fbl9]

well let’s lookat that again, b/c it seems that you (and most Catholics here) missed my point

here is what Fb19 said

and here is my response

I understood Fb19 to be describing what he thought was an impossible task. My response pointed out that the “impossible task” Fb19 described, if done in a precise fashion, would differ little from what was done in 325 AD. I don’t recognize the NT as “catholic writings” and it seems that Fb19 contemplated the use of scriptures for his challenge. So I wonder, what did they cite in 325 to get the job done, that I (or my Oneness opponent) would need to cite now? It seems to me that the Trinity can be argued from scripture and that is what mainly happened in 325. If it worked back then, it could work again.

Now, how did you manage to see “ridicule” in my answer?

that would be getting rather off-topic, wouldn’t you agree?.

And what was the vote, at that particular council?The vote is the tip off that this beleif was already held.You will note that there wasn’t much disagreement among the majority(98%) of the bishops present to start with, the disagreement was brought forth by one not a group.
But what scripture did they use? For the decsion on which books where to be declared scripture wasn’t made yet.
What happened to the few (2) that didn’t agree. They were kicked out of the Church.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t see any indication of a ministerial priesthood in the passages that you cited. All Christians are priests and we are all charged to fulfill the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel (using words if necessary). Again, in the NT no person in singled out (of the royal priesthood) and identified as a (special) priest under the new covenant…unless you want to consider Christ himself. A ministerial priesthood is not mentioned.

I am sure it seems that way, since your notions of what ministerial priesthood means are so different than what Jesus taught.

The NT presbyter (priest) is absorbed into the One Priesthood of Christ. He is from the Order of Melchizedek, not Levite. Indeed He is the special priest under the new covenant, and all those who are called into the ministry serve through His identity and power.

God makes such persons overseers of the flock, and they feed and care for the flock as shepherds, in His name, and in the person of Christ.

When Paul wrote that the “laborer is worthy of his wages” he was talking about the labor of the priestly servants in ministry to the Body of Christ.

 

[RedDawgMCM]

I said before I will say it again I tend to believe this book about the Eucharist…Seems to have held up over time. Sorry Irish it’s out of your date range…

[BIBLEDRB]John 6:48-69[/BIBLEDRB]

c) Making a Meal of It by Ben Witherington. This study of the Lord’s Supper descibes it as it originally existed.

d) The Eucharist in the West by Edward Kilmartin This work shows that the idea of a real somatic presence was still not universally held at the time of Augustine.

 

[guanophore]

d) The Eucharist in the West by Edward Kilmartin This work shows that the idea of a real somatic presence was still not universally held at the time of Augustine.

You know, this is quite true, and one needs look no further that Justin’ Martyr’s “against heresies”. There have always been heretics, as we can see from the NT up until the present day.

I don’t think we can say the Apostolic doctrine is embraced “universally” on any one point, as there are heretical ideas everywhere.

The reason the Church was being called “Catholic” by 107 AD is because the Apostolic doctrine was held universally by Catholics. Others were called schismatics, heretics, or apostates.

 

[panevino]

I don’t see any indication of a ministerial priesthood in the passages that you cited. All Christians are priests and we are all charged to fulfill the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel (using words if necessary). Again, in the NT no person in singled out (of the royal priesthood) and identified as a (special) priest under the new covenant…unless you want to consider Christ himself. A ministerial priesthood is not mentioned.

you do not consider a bishop to have a ministerial role at all? ie seperate from the priestly duties of all christians?

The guy who wrote Rom 15:16 appeared to think at least he himself did in some capacity
ie
Rom15:16 International Standard Version (©2008)
to be a minister of the Messiah Jesus to the gentiles in the priestly (iero…)service of the gospel of God, **so that **the offering brought by gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

dont mean to pester, and I dont want to post off topic.
I really only intended to respond to your comment that only Christ and levites are refered to as priests in the NT.

Rom 15:16 speaks of a priestly role and it is the same derivative? (not sure if thats the right word) of the greek word used for the OT priests referenced in the NT and jesus priesthood (ie: “ier…”)

all the best

 

[guanophore]

you do not consider a bishop to have a ministerial role at all? ie seperate from the priestly duties of all christians?

The guy who wrote Rom 15:16 appeared to think at least he himself did in some capacity
ie
Rom15:16 International Standard Version (©2008)
to be a minister of the Messiah Jesus to the gentiles in the priestly (iero…)service of the gospel of God, **so that **the offering brought by gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

dont mean to pester, and I dont want to post off topic.
I really only intended to respond to your comment that only Christ and levites are refered to as priests in the NT.

Rom 15:16 speaks of a priestly role and it is the same derivative? (not sure if thats the right word) of the greek word used for the OT priests referenced in the NT and jesus priesthood (ie: “ier…”)

all the best

It seems that Radical believes that the priestly duties given to Apostles, Bishops and presbyters in the NT belong to the whole flock. He does not seem distinguish who Jesus or the Apostles are addressing in the relevant passages, or fancies himself to be among the ordained (don’t think he believes in that either).

I was looking at Acts 20:28-29 yesterday.

28 Keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock, of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son.

Paul was on his way to Rome, a prisoner, and he called all the presybters to meet him to say goodbye. Wonder why he only called them, and not the whole flock?

He calls them overseers (a position that has already been defined in Scripture as an office) and shepherds.

It is difficult to understand how someone could think that these persons to not have a specific role/charge in the Church.

 

[Cinette]

It seems that Radical believes that the priestly duties given to Apostles, Bishops and presbyters in the NT belong to the whole flock. He does not seem distinguish who Jesus or the Apostles are addressing in the relevant passages, or fancies himself to be among the ordained (don’t think he believes in that either).

I was looking at Acts 20:28-29 yesterday.

28 Keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock, of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son.

Paul was on his way to Rome, a prisoner, and he called all the presybters to meet him to say goodbye. Wonder why he only called them, and not the whole flock?

He calls them overseers (a position that has already been defined in Scripture as an office) and shepherds.

It is difficult to understand how someone could think that these persons to not have a specific role/charge in the Church.

*It saddens me that people such as Radical stubbornly adhere to beliefs that are just “traditions of man” which was prevalent after the reformation and continues to this day. It is a great pity and reminds me of those who do not listen to one’s arguments and facts but wait for one to finish speaking so that they can say more - they listen only to themselves.

Cinette:shrug:*

 

[rainman10]

*It saddens me that people such as Radical stubbornly adhere to beliefs that are just “traditions of man” which was prevalent after the reformation and continues to this day. It is a great pity and reminds me of those who do not listen to one’s arguments and facts but wait for one to finish speaking so that they can say more - they listen only to themselves.

Cinette:shrug:*

I would like for any protestant to show me where Jesus gave the authority to any human to go and start their own church. Where does He say: “If you don’t agree or like what you hear from My original Church, go ahead and start one of your own that you can agree with and be comfortable with. If you see corruption, greed or any sinning in My original Church, please go ahead and start your own, since certainly I did not do it right the first time. Maybe one of you humans can do it better. If you go and start many churches, maybe one of them will get it right, because I could not do it right with My own original Church. The more churches there are, the better chance there will be of one of them being 100% right.”

Unless protestants can show where this authority is granted, any other argument is moot.

 

[Nicea325]

I would like for any protestant to show me where Jesus gave the authority to any human to go and start their own church. Where does He say: “If you don’t agree or like what you hear from My original Church, go ahead and start one of your own that you can agree with and be comfortable with. If you see corruption, greed or any sinning in My original Church, please go ahead and start your own, since certainly I did not do it right the first time. Maybe one of you humans can do it better. If you go and start many churches, maybe one of them will get it right, because I could not do it right with My own original Church. The more churches there are, the better chance there will be of one of them being 100% right.”

Unless protestants can show where this authority is granted, any other argument is moot.

Exactly! I have asked the same set of questions and not ONE Protestant can provide a shred of evidence. And why? Because none exist. All their churches were founded by mere mortals who had no such authority from Jesus or the Apostles to found another church.

 

[Nicea325]

*It saddens me that people such as Radical stubbornly adhere to beliefs that are just “traditions of man” which was prevalent after the reformation and continues to this day. It is a great pity and reminds me of those who do not listen to one’s arguments and facts but wait for one to finish speaking so that they can say more - they listen only to themselves.

Cinette:shrug:*

It is called DENIAL. Radical follows and adheres to another man-made church out of thousands all claiming they do it ‘right’ and everyone else is wrong. The church Radical follows is full of traditions of man.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

 

[fbl9]

And what was the vote, at that particular council?The vote is the tip off that this beleif was already held.You will note that there wasn’t much disagreement among the majority(98%) of the bishops present to start with, the disagreement was brought forth by one not a group.
But what scripture did they use? For the decsion on which books where to be declared scripture wasn’t made yet.
What happened to the few (2) that didn’t agree. They were kicked out of the Church.

What was the use of voting on the matter if the voters had not the authority to bind the results? Not every bishop was present, so they had no say in the matter, how could the vote bind them to the result, if there was no authority to bind the results?

In one of your earlier posts Radical you stated you were sure the trinity could be proven from scripture alone. I am too take this as you haven’t proven this doctrine for yourself, how do you know that the doctrine of the trinity is correct if you haven’t proven it yourself?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Nicea325,

Did you know that there is another way to spell that word…?

It is called DENIAL. Radical follows and adheres to another man-made church out of thousands all claiming they do it ‘right’ and everyone else is wrong. The church Radical follows is full of traditions of man.

Don’t

Even

Know

I

Am

Lying

God bless

 

[Nicea325]

Hi, Nicea325,

Did you know that there is another way to spell that word…?

Don’t

Even

Know

I

Am

Lying

God bless

Yep! I did it on purpose…

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Radical,

How about a response to Post #612 - I really did try to answer your questions…but, some feedback would be helpful.

God bless

 

[Radical]

And what was the vote, at that particular council?The vote is the tip off that this beleif was already held.You will note that there wasn’t much disagreement among the majority(98%) of the bishops present to start with, the disagreement was brought forth by one not a group.

yah, given the number of Oneness Pentecostals to the total number of Protestants…trinitarians would probably carry the vote by about the same margin at Nicaea 2011. Are you sure the beliefs of the bishops at Nicaea 325 didn’t span quite a spectrum?

But what scripture did they use? For the decsion on which books where to be declared scripture wasn’t made yet.

Do you think the 4 gospels or the Pauline epistles weren’t recognized and used as scriptures until some council made an official declaration?

What happened to the few (2) that didn’t agree. They were kicked out of the Church.

and that was the end of Arianism? nobody changed there mind? nobody watered down the decision of Nicaea? Everyone stuck to strick trinitarianism thereafter?

What was the use of voting on the matter if the voters had not the authority to bind the results? Not every bishop was present, so they had no say in the matter, how could the vote bind them to the result, if there was no authority to bind the results?

an authority? do you mean like an emperor who wanted to ensure unity of belief throughout his empire? …I don’t know about you, but I am kinda happy that the government no longer determines the religion of its citizens.

In one of your earlier posts Radical you stated you were sure the trinity could be proven from scripture alone. I am too take this as you haven’t proven this doctrine for yourself, …

nope, you are not to take it that way…

 

[Radical]

you do not consider a bishop to have a ministerial role at all?

a NT overseer or elder has the role of ministering to the congregation in a number of ways…but not as a priest who offers a sacrafice on behalf of the congregation.

dont mean to pester, and I dont want to post off topic.
I really only intended to respond to your comment that only Christ and levites are refered to as priests in the NT.

well, to be precise, it is that in the NT no person is singled out (of the royal priesthood) and identified as a (special) priest under the new covenant…unless you want to consider Christ himself. In addition to Chirst and the Levites, pagan priests are also mentioned an so is Melchizedek. All Christians form a royal priesthood and have priestly duties which include proclaiming the gospel…but there is simply no longer any need for a priest who offers sacrifices on behalf of his flock. I hope that clarifies my meaning

all the best

thanks, and to you too

 

[joe370]

Hey Radical…

Radical;7606240]a NT overseer or elder has the role of ministering to the congregation in a number of ways…but not as a priest who offers a sacrafice on behalf of the congregation.

Radical, is it your belief that the Catholic church and the Eastern orthodox church have been erroneous regarding the sacrifice of the Mass, since the first century, for that is how long the CC has believed in the sacrifice of the Eucharist?

 

[panevino]

a NT overseer or elder has the role of ministering to the congregation in a number of ways…

u appear to be shy of using the word “bishop” here? Why? It is biblical. Sorry If I have u wrong on this observation.

.

I am no expert but I think Eucharistic theology is a little different than what u suggest here. It is the individual “us” as part of the royal priesthood who offers spiritual sacrifices through the one sacrifice made at Calvary.
The catholic priest does not offer on our behalf independent of us as if we have nothing to do with it. There is no barrier as in the OT we are allowed to participate with the High priest through the Eucharist. And it is facilitated by the ordained overseer during the Eucharist
Any way there are probably alot of holes in my understanding , i welcolme correction by other Catholics here.

well, to be precise, it is that in the NT no person is singled out (of the royal priesthood) and identified as a (special) priest under the new covenant…unless you want to consider Christ himself. In addition to Chirst and the Levites, pagan priests are also mentioned an so is Melchizedek. All Christians form a royal priesthood and have priestly duties which include proclaiming the gospel…but there is simply no longer any need for a priest who offers sacrifices on behalf of his flock. I hope that clarifies my meaning

re rom15:16 do you consider yourself ,as part of the royal priesthood, to have an effect on the validity of the offering of the Gentiles?
is that your role or is it that of the overseers?
I agree that we r required to proclaim the gospel , but it appears a little different in that verse, something about it appeals to something of a more ministerial role of an overseer, don t you agree?

thanks, and to you too

[/QUOTE]

 

[panevino]

a NT overseer or elder has the role of ministering to the congregation in a number of ways…

u appear to be shy of using the word “bishop” here? Why? It is biblical. Sorry If I have u wrong on this observation.

Your answer includes a ministerial duty for the overseer doesn’t it?
That overseer is entitled to the label priest according to the royal priesthood mentioned by Peter and is afforded a ministerial role regardless if the role includes a offering of a sacrifice or not.

…but not as a priest who offers a sacrafice on behalf of the congregation

.

I am no expert but I think Eucharistic theology is a little different than what u suggest here. It is the individual “us” as part of the royal priesthood who offers spiritual sacrifices through the one sacrifice made at Calvary.
The catholic priest does not offer on our behalf independent of us as if we have nothing to do with it. There is no barrier as in the OT we are allowed to participate with the High priest through the Eucharist. And it is facilitated by the ordained overseer during the Eucharist
Any way there are probably alot of holes in my understanding , i welcolme correction by other Catholics here.

well, to be precise, it is that in the NT no person is singled out (of the royal priesthood) and identified as a (special) priest under the new covenant…unless you want to consider Christ himself. In addition to Chirst and the Levites, pagan priests are also mentioned an so is Melchizedek. All Christians form a royal priesthood and have priestly duties which include proclaiming the gospel…but there is simply no longer any need for a priest who offers sacrifices on behalf of his flock. I hope that clarifies my meaning

re rom15:16 do you consider yourself ,as part of the royal priesthood, to have an effect on the validity of the offering of the Gentiles?
is that your role or is it that of the overseers?
I agree that we r required to proclaim the gospel , but it appears a little different in that verse, something about it appeals to something of a more ministerial role of an overseer, don t you agree?

thanks, and to you too