Protestant interpretations...

[rinnie]

Hey! One thing at a time.

Actually, I had a similar reaction. Great minds think alike?

I might infer the following from rinnie’s post, however:

The Church is the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ. The Church cannot be separated from her Head or Her spouse. The two become one. Therefore, the Church and Christ are one. Since Christ is the Word, the Church is the Word.

But I feel uncomfortable pushing the envelope like that. I’ll have to wait for rinnie’s expansion of his thought.

Push it Randy. Any way you could possibly help to open her mind is great.

Ginger you agree marriage is a union. That no one can break apart. THat is why marriage is a sacrament.

What God has joined together. Jesus is just like that with his Church. God has joined Jesus and the Church together to be a living visual example for us of the truth. Now Ginger no one can take split Jesus from the Church. Its impossible.

What GOD HAS JOINED TOGETHER! IT IS A PERFECT UNION!

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN]Jesus is the Word[/SIGN]. John 1:1

Because the Inspired Scriptures are the very Word of God. Not just letters written on a page to form words, but God’s Word in written form - a tangible way to access the Spiritual.

We don’t just learn about God from reading the Holy Scriptures - God communicates to us thru these Scriptures in the present.

I know a man who was homosexual and one day as he was reading the Bible God revealed to him change is possible. Today he is in a heterosexual marriage and has been for several years.

Ginger

yes yes Yes. JESUS IS THE WORD. Thank-you. Jesus the word, The Church the living word. 2 become 1. Marriage, the bride the groom 2 become 1 in Christ,

Union, What God has joined together (no one can break apart remember) That is why Jesus and the Church are one!

Just like you cannot separate a man and women you cannot separate Jesus from his Church they are ONE! Ginger I think you got it!

Jesus is the word, the word is God, the Church is the word because its one in Christ! :extrahappy:

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Jesus is the Word. John 1:1

[SIGN]Because the Inspired Scriptures are the very Word of God[/SIGN]. Not just letters written on a page to form words, but God’s Word in written form - a tangible way to access the Spiritual.

We don’t just learn about God from reading the Holy Scriptures - God communicates to us thru these Scriptures in the present.

I know a man who was homosexual and one day as he was reading the Bible God revealed to him change is possible. Today he is in a heterosexual marriage and has been for several years.

Ginger

There you Go Ginger. The Church and the Scriptures are one in the same. Just like Christ and the Church are one in the same. Just like we have the FATHER THE SON THE HOLY SPIRIT ONE IN THE SAME GOD!

I pray that this can somehow show you Ginger why we get so high about our faith. And why we study the bible scripture as you call it. SS as we call it, And we have to have SS and Oral Tradition to understand it all. We LOVE the BIBLE GINGER. We do read it daily. But we also know that we do not have the Power that GOD GAVE to his Apostles to define scripture. But yes we can teach each other, but only when we learn from the LIVING CHRIST the Church to do that.

And now we see we having the Living Church Christ. He leads us. How through the Power of the HS. Its the HS that leads the POPE and the Bishops. The Pope and Bishops do not lead the Church, the Church leads them.

The Pope will never tell you Ginger that anything he says or does is by his own power. He has no Power on his own, never has, never will. It is God who has the Power and authority and uses the POPE to exercise that Power and Authority. And we know that is the truth because Jesus told us. YOU ARE PETER! Back to those wonderful, keys, the keys to the kingdom. Its not only authority that the Pope has Ginger it the KEYS TO KNOWLEDGE. That is what I wanted you guys to see,

Led by the Power of Knowledge (the HOLY SPIRIT, THE ONE IN CHRIST, THE CHURCH).

He promised us who ever has the keys to the kingdom will be led by the Power of the Holy Spirit.

 

[plain_me]

Whoa. I’m not sure I can keep up now even if I don’t miss a day. 3 pages in one morning?! You people are out of control!

Randy, I’ll take some time to try to find the book’s length of quotations that you pasted in your respnse to me, but I can’t promise a response this year. I noticed that you missed the point, though, because I was commenting on Augustine’s understanding of what it means to “bind” and to “loose.” You seemed to think that I was addressing all sorts of other issues that Augustine mentioned in his writings. You also seem to think that I need to agree with Augustine on all points or else I can’t quote him on anything. I am a protestant, Randy. I don’t claim to be in an unbroken line of continuity with all the ECFs til now. I recognize and can legitimately point out the mistakes that they made and still be consistent with my tradition and the Bible itself. You…well…you can’t.

And though I’m not trying to argue with you and Ginger (I agree with Ginger, actually), I noticed that you both said that you never claied that the apostles were preserved from or without error altogether. I just wanted to remind you of what you said which I hope will give you an understanding of why I said what I did:

I never saw that before! This we know all the Apostles wrote and spoke truth or they could not be considered divinely inspired. They were protected from error.
But it disproves papal infallibility as Peter was not the only one protected from error.

(I should acknowledge this doesn’t settle the issue of the keys.)

Ginger

Again we are agreed. :extrahappy:

The Apostles were individually infallible and they each had universal jurisdiction.

However, the separate distinction made by Jesus suggests that Peter as head of the Church is unique. We can discuss whether this continues is his successors…it’s the next logical step, don’t you think?

But I don’t want to be greedy! I’m happy with the progress we have made so far!

It seems that when using the word “infallible” one would have the intention of attributing to someone the privilege of being “without error.” In Randy’s quotation there is room for understanding him to notbe referring to the speech of the apostles, but not according to the official church teaching on this. Peter was indeed teaching something about the Gospel itself in Galatians 2 by his actions and his lack of correction, but I won’t pusue this any further. Heck, I’ll be too busy looking up all the quotations that were left for me!

 

[Des]

Very obviously, Peter was in error and even leading people astray from the truth of the Gospel itself! This was no minor mistake. Paul said that Peter was distorting the pure message of the Gospel as those whom he anathamatized were in chapter 1 of the same book. He used Peter as an example of someone leading people into heresy. Doesn’t sound like Peter was preserved from error, but this doesn’t automatically translate into the apostles not being able to be considered divinely inspired. They were divinely inspired in all that they put down on paper (or papyrus), and that’s all we have any assurance of.

Peter is the one who infallibly stated the Gospel was likewise for the Gentiles in the Council of Jerusalem before this incident had taken place which was binded on the faithful. So we know Peter knew the truth of the matter at heart and wasn’t making a contractive doctrine to His own teaching. Yes, Peter could have scandalized the faithful with His actions which I’m sure none of us will deny can happen but that’s a far cry from ‘intentionally teaching’ error.

Paul had admitted to being a sinner as well. Isn’t it fair to say that throughout His life as a Christian, He or the other Apostles sometimes sinned in front of others? Where one who observed their sin could be scandalized? But again, it doesn’t mean they were wanting to make their sinful actions a part of the Gospel nor does it take away from their infallible Authority with the purpose of actually teaching the message of Christ.

And Randy is correct. Paul was being quite the hypocrite in later doing similar to what He denounced Peter of doing.

 

[rinnie]

Whoa. I’m not sure I can keep up now even if I don’t miss a day. 3 pages in one morning?! You people are out of control!

Randy, I’ll take some time to try to find the book’s length of quotations that you pasted in your respnse to me, but I can’t promise a response this year. I noticed that you missed the point, though, because I was commenting on Augustine’s understanding of what it means to “bind” and to “loose.” You seemed to think that I was addressing all sorts of other issues that Augustine mentioned in his writings. You also seem to think that I need to agree with Augustine on all points or else I can’t quote him on anything. I am a protestant, Randy. I don’t claim to be in an unbroken line of continuity with all the ECFs til now. I recognize and can legitimately point out the mistakes that they made and still be consistent with my tradition and the Bible itself. You…well…you can’t.

And though I’m not trying to argue with you and Ginger (I agree with Ginger, actually), I noticed that you both said that you never claied that the apostles were preserved from or without error altogether. I just wanted to remind you of what you said which I hope will give you an understanding of why I said what I did:

[SIGN]It seems that when using the word “infallible” one would have the intention of attributing to someone the privilege of being “without error.” [/SIGN]In Randy’s quotation there is room for understanding him to notbe referring to the speech of the apostles, but not according to the official church teaching on this. Peter was indeed teaching something about the Gospel itself in Galatians 2 by his actions and his lack of correction, but I won’t pusue this any further. Heck, I’ll be too busy looking up all the quotations that were left for me!

[SIGN][/SIGN] It would indeed

St Ephiphanius (385 A.D.)

Blessed Peter who for a while denied the Lord, Peter was was Chief of the Apostle he who became unto us truly a firm rock upon which is based the LORD"S FAITH, upon which rock the church is in every way built.

Holy men are therefore called the temple of God because the HS dewlls in them as the Chief of the Apostles testifies he was found Worthy to be blessed by the Lord because the Father revealed unto him…This was fittinng first of the Apostles that Firm Rock upon which the church was built and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The gates of Hell are herestics and heresiarchs, For in every way the faith confirmed in him who received the keys of heaven who looses on earth and binds in heaven. For in him are found all subtle questions of faith … And he heard from the Same God. Peter feed my lambs to him WAS ENTRUSTED THE FLOCK** HE** leads the way admirably in the POWER OF HIS OWN MASTER.

(caps are mine)

Now the question is Did Jesus entrust the Flock to Peter, Yes he did!

Did Jesus promise he would never leave us orphans? Yes he did

Did Jesus promise us hell would never prevail against the CHurch. Yes he did!

 

[teak421]

I don’t think this one is important enough to bicker over:

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Speaking in tongues is not a requirement according to Scriptures, so they are obviously mistaken.

In your opinion. Have you studied how they came up with their doctrine? Or, are you ignorant on their positions? If you are not ignorant, could you explain how they came up with their view? If you can not discuss their view, how do you know they are wrong?

Do you believe that a person should be Baptized in ONLY Jesus’s name? Not the trinityarian (sp?) formula?

• Michael

 

[Randy_Carson]

I noticed that you missed the point, though, because I was commenting on Augustine’s understanding of what it means to “bind” and to “loose.”

No, I didn’t. I understand completely what you want to represent Augustine as believing. In refutation of that, I pointed out that Augustine taught that Peter Alone, not the entire Church, was given the keys. Did you read the quote…or simply skip over everything I posted because you can’t keep up with the “book” I posted?

You want an “either-or” scenario…either Jesus gave the keys to the entire Church OR He gave them to Peter alone. You quoted Augustine to persuade me that at least one ECF argued for the former.

What a feather that would be, eh? A Catholic saint teaching that Peter didn’t really receive the keys alone…what a coup for Protestants who want to justify their separation from the one, true Church - an ECF who claims that the keys were actually given to the entire Church…why, that would mean that ALL believers have the authority of binding and loosing, wouldn’t it? So much for Apostolic Authority and Apostolic Succession.

That, my dear separated brother, is why I pointed out the fact that in another place Augustine specified that Peter ALONE received the keys from Jesus; it’s “both-and” - Peter received them both on behalf of the entire Church, and he received them alone in his unique capacity as the prime minister of the King’s household. This is where a deeper understanding of the Royal Steward (cf. Is 22) would help.

You seemed to think that I was addressing all sorts of other issues that Augustine mentioned in his writings. You also seem to think that I need to agree with Augustine on all points or else I can’t quote him on anything. I am a protestant, Randy. I don’t claim to be in an unbroken line of continuity with all the ECFs til now. I recognize and can legitimately point out the mistakes that they made and still be consistent with my tradition and the Bible itself. You…well…you can’t.

Of course I can. I don’t have to claim or believe that every father was correct on every issue. They weren’t and Catholics don’t pretend otherwise. The Church listens to all of her sons and infallibly chooses among the different ideas that are developed. But we don’t speak of an “unbroken line of continuity with all the ECF’s” - you seem to have that confused with the papacy, but they are not the same thing.

My purpose in presenting a bigger picture of Augustine’s thought is to prove to you that you don’t want Augustine examining your theology. Augustine was CATHOLIC, and for all your empty rhetoric about me “relinquishing the mighty theologian”, the fact of the matter is that YOU DO NOT WANT AUGUSTINE examining your theology because it would be found wanting in his eyes since it is wanting in the eyes of God.

And though I’m not trying to argue with you and Ginger (I agree with Ginger, actually), I noticed that you both said that you never claied that the apostles were preserved from or without error altogether. I just wanted to remind you of what you said which I hope will give you an understanding of why I said what I did

I know what we said and I know that what we said is accurate. What is less certain is whether you understand what we mean when we use the word “infallible”. Infallibility is a very precisely defined concept. It has nothing to do with actions…it has only to do with formal teaching on matters of faith and morals. The pope is not impeccable; he is infallible. This is not something special about the Pope; it is something special that God does to prevent the Pope from teaching error.

It seems that when using the word “infallible” one would have the intention of attributing to someone the privilege of being “without error.” In Randy’s quotation there is room for understanding him to notbe referring to the speech of the apostles, but not according to the official church teaching on this. Peter was indeed teaching something about the Gospel itself in Galatians 2 by his actions and his lack of correction, but I won’t pusue this any further. Heck, I’ll be too busy looking up all the quotations that were left for me!

Infallibility is defined precisely with five criteria that must be met in order for the teaching to be infallible. One of them has to do with the Pope’s formal defining of a doctrine in his capacity as head of the universal Church.

Eating a bowl of Cornflakes with some visitors from Jerusalem did not meet this criterion.

 

[teak421]

Randy,

I would much rather take the infallibly of the Pope (in concert with the Bishops from around the world) over a small group of Elders at a local non-denominational Church…

Where is the Protestant outrage when a small group of Elders determines that one must speak in tongues in order to be saved? Where’s the outrage when another group of elders determines that once you are saved, you are always saved.

I do not understand the selective outrage. How is the Pope (and Bishops) different than any other group of elders at a local denominational church?

• Michael

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Hey! One thing at a time.

Actually, I had a similar reaction. Great minds think alike?

I might infer the following from rinnie’s post, however:

[SIGN]The Church is the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ. The Church cannot be separated from her Head or Her spouse. The two become one. Therefore, the Church and Christ are one. Since Christ is the Word, the Church is the Word.[/SIGN]
But I feel uncomfortable pushing the envelope like that. I’ll have to wait for rinnie’s expansion of his thought.

I alway’s forget, When I am talking to protestant’s I must show the scripture. I get in trouble alot because when I don’t I am accused of making up this teaching. So to save face I have scripture. Sorry I didn’t include it sooner. I forgot:blush:

Revelation 1:l-ll, 17 Readings to the seven churches (a call to repentence) the scroll sealed with the seven seals. THE LITURGY OF THE WORD.

Revelation 11:19 to 22:21 Pouring out of the chalices, THE MARRIAGE supper of the LAMB… THE EUCHARIST.

This is what the second Key opens up Revelation for us. THE MASS.

CCC Liturgy is an action of the whole Christ. Those who even now celebrate it without signs are already in the heavenly liturgy, where celebratiom is wholly communion and feast.

 

[Ginger2]

In your opinion. Have you studied how they came up with their doctrine? Or, are you ignorant on their positions? If you are not ignorant, could you explain how they came up with their view? If you can not discuss their view, how do you know they are wrong?

Do you believe that a person should be Baptized in ONLY Jesus’s name? Not the trinityarian (sp?) formula?

• Michael

:doh2:

:banghead:

:crying:

:banghead:

 

[JohnnyBeth]

Indeed. In fact, here it is:

“But I have written very boldly to you on some points so as to remind you again, because of the grace that was given me from God, to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the gospel of God, so that my offering of the Gentiles may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.” (Romans 15:15-16)

Do you undersatnd the context that Paul used this? Of course you do not; otherwise you would not try to provide this as evidence of a Roman priesthood, like that of Catholics, that simply does not exist in Scripture. So keep trying to add to the Bible that which is not there; it is in vain as I see it.

Paul gives the explanation “my offering of the gentile may become acceptable” to whom? God What was one of the OT function of a priest? Offer scarifices that were what? acceptable to God. What was God primary purpose for Paul’s ministry? Hint: gentiles

Who offered up the sacrafice of Jesus? God or man? Can the “Church” repeat a divine offering? Does the Bible tell anyone to? No and no again. It was and is the sole work of God to reconcile men to Himself.

So, as was pointed out, there were three levels of priesthood under the Law of Moses, just as there are three levels of priesthood under the Law of Christ…

“For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.” (Hebrews 7:12)

I already throughly refute Randy’s claim about the 3 levels, they were conditional upon the Israelites keeping their part of the covenant, which they did not, which is why they are not a priestly nation to this day. How everyone ignores the actual reality of things is beyond my understanding, but it is so.

I would love to explain Hebrews 7 to you, but I believe it would be beyond understanding. I will leave you with a word from God:
Heb.7:23-28 The former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing, but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently. Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints a Son, made perfect forever.

Are you under the law or of grace?

Indeed. We’re in a war here! And we need to all be one. The Catholic Church needs zealous, Bible-believing soldiers of Christ like you guys as much as you need Her. And don’t even get me started on the Sacraments! You will see more clearly than you ever dreamed of. :yup: But here’s the problem…

“Lord… In your field we see more weeds than wheat.” ~ Pope Benedict XVI

Come home, Catholics. Come home, Protestants. Lord, hear our prayer. :bowdown:

I would be more concerned about being “in Christ”, than “in Church”; there is only one right path; we all better know the road we are on and why.

 

[JohnnyBeth]

It’s late, so we’ll take this up again tomorrow.

But for now, we agree on the fact the the early Christians recognized that Peter was the head of the Church.

The next connection that I have to make is that Peter had successors who were also viewed as the head of the early Christian Church.

Agreed?

Good try to assume we agreed Peter is the head of the church; Peter was acknowledged as being put into a leadership rule among the apostles and a foundation layer of the church. Much different that Peter usurping the headship of Christ as you utter and are apparently convinced of dispite what the God has said. Perhaps it was later than you thought last night…LOL

 

[LionHeart777]

Can the “Church” repeat a divine offering?

JB, not a repitition, but rather a participation in…I think it is basically the same as the Eastern Orthodox view:
oca.org/QA.asp?ID=202&SID=3.

It was offered “once and for all” as we read in Hebrews.

Regarding it not being commanded in the Bible (or something similar you said):

please see the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of this link

catholic.com/library/Sacrifice_of_the_Mass.asp

This too (below) might help so that at least you word things correctly, b/c I don’t think that Catholics would agree w/ that quote above:

catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0309sbs.asp

 

[teak421]

:doh2:

:banghead:

:crying:

:banghead:

what’s that all about? I thought my questions were simple and to the point.

• Michael

 

[JohnnyBeth]

I think you have confused some things, so let’s clarify, okay?

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.

God does not respect “ranks” as you suppose; He is not a respector of persons regardless of “rank”, gender, rich, poor etc. In fact it is a “desire” of the overseerer to shepherd, not sacrafice on behalf of" God’s flock. Christ ushered in the New Covenant by one single and final sacrifice. End of story. You do not know this concerning Gods character or just choose to ignore it to fit a theology?

Priest, hiereus: (Why would you use a Greek word for overseer to be the same as a separate and distinct word for priest? To make you theology fit?)

1. a priest, one who offers sacrifices and in general in busied with sacred rites
   referring to priests of Gentiles or the Jews, (OT)
2. metaph. of Christians, because, purified by the blood of Christ and brought into close intercourse with God, they devote their life to him alone and to Christ (NT)

If you want to continue to distort the Word of God that is your business, but I don’t really want any part of it.

Elder: presbyteros

1. elder, of age, the elder of two people advanced in life, an elder, a senior a) forefathers
2. among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) ***The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably ***

Notice the lack of sacraficial duties

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.

All man-made things/teachings have a tendency to evolve over time; whereas God does not change.

As the following quotations illustrate, the early Church Fathers recognized all three offices and regarded them as essential to the Church’s structure. Especially significant are the letters of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who traveled from his home city to Rome, where he was executed around A.D. 110. On the way he wrote letters to the churches he passed. Each of these churches possessed the same threefold ministry. Without this threefold ministry, Ignatius said, a group cannot be called a church.

We call this the plurality of leadership; depending on the size of the flock all are necessary (I do not include the priest as you do). Deacon, Elder, overseer - to tend, protect and feed the flocks God has entrusted, as Ignatius quoted above, a group wothout this leadership cannot be called a churh. Of course what is interesting to me is he is referrinf to the local and visable churches, consistent with Scripture and inconsistent with a central church.

 

[teak421]

All man-made things/teachings have a tendency to evolve over time; whereas God does not change.

Do you believe the Trinity is a man-made doctrine?

• Michael

 

[JohnnyBeth]

JB,

I was interested in seeing your references I think more than a debate. Actually, I really don’t want to debate and I am busy these days w/ school and don’t have much time.

If you could lead me to where you came up w/ that idea I would appreciate it–if it’s not a big hassle. You can p.m. me, like I said. I just want to see what that argument is based on–what facts. Thanks.

also, while I agree w/ you that the ECF’s used Scripture… I don’t think that it was the only authority that they utilized. I would argue that they also relied on the ECF’s before them, and that they relied on Tradition.

For example, in the back of my copy of Jurgens’ Faith of the Early Fathers: Volume 1, in the “Doctrinal Index” on pg. 417 under the section, “The Trinity”, you see a listing called “In their struggle against Arianism the later Fathers appeal to the pre-Nicene trinitarian tradition.” (#231) It goes on to give the call #'s for some quote of ECF’s.
(The Faith of The Early Fathers: Volume 1, Jurgens, William A. The Liturgical Press. Collegeville, Minnesota:1970. (pg. 417.))

also, here is a quote that comes to mind from a later ECF (Vincent of Lerins):

“…‘Therefore, as soon as the corruption of each mischievous error begins to break forth, and to defend itself by filching certain passages of Scripture, and expounding them fraudulently and deceitfully, forthwith the opinions of the ancients in the interpretation of the canon are to be collected, whereby the novelty . . . may be condemned. But the opinions of those Fathers only are to be used for comparison who, living and teaching, holily, wisely, and with constancy, in the Catholic faith and communion, were counted worthy either to die in the faith of Christ or to suffer death happily for Christ. Whom yet we are to believe on this condition, that only is to be accounted indubitable, certain, established, which either all or the most part have supported and confirmed manifestly, frequently, persistently, in one and the same sense, forming, as it were, a consentient council of doctors, all receiving, holding, handing on the same doctrine. But whatsoever a teacher holds, be he a bishop, be he a confessor, be he a martyr, let that be regarded as a private fancy of his own, and [let it] be separated from the authority common, public, general persuasion.’ (Commonitoria 28:72-23 [A.D. 434]).”
(catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9403qq.asp) (accessed 9/ 27/ 09)

Actually, if you go back to that link and find the quote in context…I believe the topic(s) the author who utilizes Vincent’s quote here is discussing Tradition and the ECF’s and he/she mentions Irenaeus and another besides Vincent here (I think–you’d have to check the link.)

Also, just curious. Have you ever read St. Ignatius of Antioch’s epistles? They are available in their entirety.

God bless.

Reference to what? The letter that have been debated as forgeries?

 

[Luke65]

Do you undersatnd the context that Paul used this? Of course you do not; otherwise you would not try to provide this as evidence of a Roman priesthood, like that of Catholics, that simply does not exist in Scripture. So keep trying to add to the Bible that which is not there; it is in vain as I see it.

I added nothing. You are taking away from Scripture in denying that St. Paul was a priest ministering under the New Covenant.

Paul gives the explanation “my offering of the gentile may become acceptable” to whom? God What was one of the OT function of a priest? Offer scarifices that were what? acceptable to God. What was God primary purpose for Paul’s ministry? Hint: gentiles

Who offered up the sacrafice of Jesus? God or man? Can the “Church” repeat a divine offering? Does the Bible tell anyone to? No and no again. It was and is the sole work of God to reconcile men to Himself.

Yes, not only does our Lord Jesus tell His priests to repeatedly offer up His pure Sacrifice - His Body and Blood - in the New Testament, but the Old Testament foretold this:

“For from the rising of the sun to its setting My name shall be great among the nations, and in every place incense shall be offered to My name, and indeed a pure offering; for My name shall be great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts.” (Malachi 1:11)

I already throughly refute Randy’s claim about the 3 levels, they were conditional upon the Israelites keeping their part of the covenant, which they did not, which is why they are not a priestly nation to this day. How everyone ignores the actual reality of things is beyond my understanding, but it is so.

You refuted nothing. The Old Covenant was replaced by the New Covenant. And with a new covenant and a new law comes a new priesthood.

I would love to explain Hebrews 7 to you, but I believe it would be beyond understanding. I will leave you with a word from God:
Heb.7:23-28 The former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing, but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently. Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints a Son, made perfect forever.

You seem to be interpreting this to mean that Christ replaced all of the Levite priests, but that is not the context. Christ replaced the High Priest - all of them who had come before Him. And this is proved by the fact that Paul himself is a priest under the New Covenant, even though he was from the tribe of Benjamin, not Levi.

Are you under the law or of grace?

I, like St. Paul and all baptized Christians, have been given the graces necessary to keep the Law of Christ.

“To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.” (1 Corinthians 9:21)

Are you not under the Law of Christ? Are you greater than Paul?

I would be more concerned about being “in Christ”, than “in Church”; there is only one right path; we all better know the road we are on and why.

I guess this needs to be repeated yet again. The Church is the Body of Christ. You cannot be “in Christ” and not in the Catholic Church. You can’t separate the Head from the Body. And if you dispute this, then the Bible tells you what to do: “Tell it to the Church”!

 

[JohnnyBeth]

Do you believe the Trinity is a man-made doctrine?

• Michael

Evolving is something that comes about after the firm foundation has been laid, such as praying to saints, papacy, peterine primacy, perpetual virginity, a levitical self-styled priesthood etc. Discovery is that which has existed and later qualified; such as the Trinity or sola scriptura. Try not to confuse the differences.