Sacramental Preisthood?

[Afterburned6387]

FINALLY!! THANK YOU SO MUCH!! SOMEONE WHO CAN REASON WITH SCRIPTURE!!! GOOD DEAL!!!

There are still a few sticky points i need to address, but that will have to wait till morning, I’m going to bed!

 

[Turtullian]

The invocation of Korah in this context is as an example of rebellion,

A what was the rebellion of Korah? That’s context. Korah wasn’t a rebel for anything. His rebellion is specific, he went ahead any made sacrifices to god and instructed his followers to do so directly without a priest. Hence it is called also the “contradiction of Korah” by Jud

no where does it equate his error to this error, only his rebellious nature,

The citations are about what evils Christians were doing. People were entering into the Error of Balaam. Balaam’s error was very specific. He tried to teach false doctrine for the sake monetary gain and Christians of the time were doing it.

how else would you also explain the reference to Balaam, and Cain? If the rush into profit of Balaam is to be avoided,

Both are very specific. 1 has to deal with murder, the other has to deal with people going around teaching false doctrines for profit. The introduction of balaam makes Jude’s mentioning of Korah that much more powerfull as a warning to those who would usurp the authority of the bishops and priests.

what about indulgences for pay?

Which are condemned, you can not buy an indulgence.

 

[maryj]

Are you saying we don’t all have the spirit?

Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you.

1 Tim 4:14 – Elders could also lay on hands (sometimes translated “bishops”, of which marriage was a requirement as listed in 1 Tim 3:2)

This applies to seventy two people who were sent by Christ, no where does this indicate a Priesthood

My second Corinthians only goes to chapter 13
And my first only goes to 16

Old Testament Priests exist, I accept that, I’m asking for a new testament presence. Besides, can I not also instruct? I would say in the new covenant, this also applies to all believers

He calls them disciples, the same word he uses in the Great Commission to describe us. Does it not also apply to us?

so you mean I am excluded from the great commission? but I liked evangelism!

Given to Overseers, once again, they MUST be married (1 Tim 3:2)

Says everyone should try, but there still is no logical connection to “preists”

Isn’t this also a command to all of us? To the Ephesians, Paul writes “be imitators of God, as dearly loved children” (Eph. 5:1)

In context, he is writing to the members of the Corinthian church, it applies to all in the church (1 Cor 7:29)

Not quite, I am still looking for evidence of Exclusivity of Ability, which I haven’t found yet. Sorry I haven’t responded to each text in detail, but I’ve tried to point out the biggest fallacies, Most of them are out-of-context problems, or irrelevancy problems.

As an entire argument, you still need to get out of the problem of Christ calling the twelve “disciples,” and then telling them to go make “disciples.” I interpret that as meaning that each of us has just as much authority as any apostle. And yes, this includes binding and loosing. If each of us is truly spirit-indwelled, and sensitive to that spirit leading, we have the Mind of Christ, and can interpret on our own in good faith (for Mind of Christ, see 1 Cor 2:16, in context, speaking to all members of the Corinthian Church)

Come on baby…let’s do the twist…Scripture is an intricate layer, pull one layer away and another lies below. The Apostles were disciples. Just as I am a woman, and a daughter,and a granddaughter, and a wife, and a mom, and a sister. Just because you become another thing doesn’t mean you cease to be what you were, there is just added responsibility. And I really shouldn’t ask…but I can’t help myself…how would it be that you can bind and loose…

 

[DJim]

Afterburned:

1. You never replied whether you were familiar with St. Ignatius’ letters–I’ll take the silence as a “no”.
2. The transmission of Scripture has also been subject to human error. In that sense, it is not more or less reliable than the Living Tradition of the Catholic Church.
3. I must emphasize strongly that Catholic Tradition is NOT simply “oral”. It ain’t.
4. Can you tell me whether Mark 10:26 is divinely inspired, or not? I would appreciate knowing once and for all.

To which I now add a fifth:

1. Afterburned, are you saying that you have the authority to forgive my sins?

DJim

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Afterburned6387: When was the last time you forgave someone “In the Person of Christ” after you had retained their sin?

That’s what Paul did.

Have you ever done that?

Has any Protestant ever done that?

When Jesus gave the disciples the power to retain sin was He doing something wrong?

When do you believe that anyone should retain a sin?

Does the priesthood of all believers provide for Retaining sin?

Oh by the way–read 1 Corinthians chapter 5 for scriptural evidence of Paul retaining sin and rebuking the Corinthian church for associating with a man who committed incest.

Exactly what part of the Retention of that man’s sin and exactly what part of it not having anything to do with the priesthood of all believers and Paul later on in 2 Corinthians Forgiving that sin “In in the Person of Christ”–and not in the priesthood of all believers do you not understand?

Oh by the way: The scriptures say that Jesus Breathed on the disciples and gave them the power to Forgive and Retain sin.

Why would anyone lie about what the scriptures say and say that that extended to all believers?

Do you believe that Jesus has breathed on you and given you the power to Forgive and Retain sins?

If you had lived in Paul’s day and had been a member of the Corinthian church could Paul forgive you" In the Person of Christ" or would you tell Paul that only God can forgive and retain sin?

Would you tell your fellow members of the Corinthian church not to listen to Paul Retaining the man’s sin since because of the priesthood of all believers that all members of the Corinthian church could choose to Forgive the man?

Exactly what sense would it make if some believers Forgave the same sin while others Retained it?

Wouldn’t that make the priesthood of all believers divided against itself?

How could any priesthood belonging to Jesus be divided amongst itself?

Face It: the Protestant notion of the priesthood of all belivers leads to division.

Who likes such division?

Satan!

Who hates the unity of the Catholic Church and the successors to Paul who exercise the Forgivenes and Retaining of sin?

Satan!

If everyone could confess all of their sins directly to God why would Jesus Breathe on the disciples and give them the power to not only forgive but also retain sins and do that after Calvary?

And significantly why would He Breathe on the disicples to transfer that authority?

Because up until then only God could forgive and retain sin!

Transfering that power was an event on the level of Brathing on Adam and giving him a living soul.

It extedned divine power.

That divine power is exercised sacramentaly in confession as the scriptures and Paul demonstrate!

The prieshood of all believers explanation particularly of retaining sin is not only lacking–it is inspired by Satan himself to cause division.

Nobody believed that everyone could retain sin for over 1500 years!

Was the sovereign God impotent and not caring for His church not to believe in that explanation for 1500 years?

So not only is the priesthood of all believers explanation of confession a lie because of the scriptures and because of Jesus’ own words and breath–it is also a lie given the historical record.

Exactly how big of a lie will Protestants believe and try to get others to believe to reserve to themselves the power to forgive and retain sin which Jesus Never exttedned to them becausde He never breathed on them?

But of course ask any Protestant and he would say that it would be wrtong to retain a person’s sin!

Jesus didn’t believe that because he gave that power to the disciples!

So the ultimate question is do you believe Protestants and their explanation 1500 years later or do you believe Jesus?!

 

[tenax_propositi]

Hi Afterburned, what an interesting thread. I’m a Protestant like yourself, although I must admit that I’m moving slowly towards Rome.

Catholics do believe in the priesthood of all believers. In Christ, all of us can offer ourselves, our bodies and souls to God, uniting them with the one pure offering of Christ.

However, Catholics also believe that their presbyters (priests) and overseers (bishops) share in the one priesthood of Christ in a special sense. (Pope Pius XI Ad Catholici sacerdotii, 1935). Indeed, the very use of the term ‘High Priest’ in Hebrew 5 suggests that there are priests in the Christian tradition.

That said, we can drop the word priest from our discussion right now, and focus on whether the Bible warrants an exclusive or ‘set apart’ hierarchy within the Church - a clergy, if you will. In other words, does the New Testament provide for certain Christians being invested with special powers and privileges not given to others; I think it does.

First, lets look at **jurisdictional **powers - i.e. powers of governance and authority over the Body of Christ. In scripture, ONLY the apostles were given the authority to admit people into the faith through baptism (Matt 28: 18-20) or to forgive sins in the name of Christ. (John 20:22)Also, when Jesus gave apostles the power to bind and loose, (Matt 18:18) he gave them the authority to define teaching and doctrine. The ordination of Matthias in Acts confirms that they could then **transmit this power **by laying on of hands.

Secondly, the clergy were given **powers relating to the **Eucharist. All believers are instructed by Christ to ‘eat of this bread’ (John 6:52) but only the apostles were empowered by Christ at the Last Supper to perform the rite. And when Christ said ‘Do this…’ to the apostles, the word used for ‘do’ was ‘poieite’ which is more commonly used to mean ‘offer’ in the sacrificial sense. It is used in this sense on more than 70 occassions in the Old Testament! And the word used for remembrance is ‘anemnesis’, which again is most commonly used in a sacrifical sense." I believe that Christ instructed his apostles to share in his priesthood and to share in his one offering of himself.

Now, you might well say that I have misinterpreted the scriptures, and this is where sola scriptura becomes difficult. If we both derive different understandings from scripture, who is correct? I think that we should look at the writings of early Christians to see what they believed. And what do we find in the Fathers? I’m afraid it supports the Catholic interpreataion:

The Didache, AD 70
“Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your **sacrifice **[Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, ‘Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations’ [Mal. 1:11, 14]”

Clement of Rome, talking about whether or not to eject bishops, in AD 80:
Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrifices. Blessed are those presbyters who have already finished their course, and who have obtained a fruitful and perfect release" (Letter to the Corinthians 44:4–5)

And finally, Ignatius of Antioch, who was taught either by St John the Apostle or by others who received their instruction from John.
(AD110)
“Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice—even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God” (Letter to the Philadelphians 4)

Also, there is good evidence that early Christians understood bishops to be the successors to the apostles. **Clement of Rome **(a bishop himself) wrote, "Our apostles knew through Our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be trouble over the word ‘episcopate’, and for this reason…they…made an arrangement that when they should fall asleep, other suitable men should take their ministry.’ (Letter to the Corinthians 44)

Again, this was written just a few years after the deaths of the apostles. How can it be questioned that the Church, from the earliest times, believed in bishops and overseers who had been invested with special powers?

St Paul also indicates a belief in this when he addresses Timothy and talks of the ‘grace of God that is in thee by the imposition of my hands’ 2 Tim 1:6.

I’d welcome responses. God Bless.

 

[TarlsQtr]

Just curious. What would be the Protestant argument regarding Acts 15 (Jerusalem decree)? It seems that line 24 is directly stating that those who are preaching without commandment (ordination) from the apostles should not be.

 

[maryj]

afterburned stated, My second Corinthians only goes to chapter 13
And my first only goes to 16

typo sorry!! 2Chronicles not 2 Corinthians

anywhoo…
2 Chronicles 19:11 See now, Amariah is high priest over you in everything that pertains to the Lord
But then again I don’t think you will accept OT will you.

 

[SFLCatholic]

Romans is supposed to be the “Theological Center” of the new testament, but priests are seemingly absent, it seems natural to be skeptical about a Priesthood existing now.

Or, to state it another way, if a “priesthood” cannot be found, is there any evidence of a group of people (clergy) that in some way have a different relationship with God than the rest of us?

Your first problem, as with many Protestants, is putting Romans as the “theological center”. You put Jesus’ teachings aside for Paul’s. Jesus is the theological center. Paul was an inspired voice.

So, if you fix that problem you can address the second. The priesthood has it foundation in the primacy of Peter as the rock upon which Jesus built His church. Mat 16:18-20.

Reading from the rest of your posts, your veneer has worn through and exposed you as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Your innocent intent is a thinly disguised attempt at debating Catholic teaching.

Debate on and be converted to the One True Faith. Welcome aboard.

 

[Pax]

…
…
Not quite, I am still looking for evidence of Exclusivity of Ability, which I haven’t found yet.
…
…

Okay, here is some exclusivity of ability that is clearly written in scripture.

Acts 8:13-24
Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed. Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit; for it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, saying, “Give me also this power, that any one on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” But Peter said to him, “Your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money! You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God. Repent therefore of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you. For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.” And Simon answered, “Pray for me to the Lord, that nothing of what you have said may come upon me.”

As you can readily see from this passage not everyone is given the power that is associated with the laying on of hands. The power itself is transmitted from one person to another. That is from one who is ordained to another who is ordained accordingly. We also see this in Paul speaking to Timothy. Paul says:

1 Tim 4:4
Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance **when the council of elders laid their hands **upon you.

Timothy became a bishop and he ordained others. Paul even gives Timothy some serious instructions about all of this when he says:

1Tim 5:22
Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands,

We also read this from the book of James:

James 5:14-15
Is any among you sick? Let him call for the presbyters of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.

Please note that James says to call for the presbyters and not the lay members of the Christian community. It is they who are to pray for the sick man and to annoint him with oil so that by the prayer of faith the sick man will be saved and his sins forgiven.

This is not to suggest that the rest of us shouldn’t pray for the sick. Instead it clearly demonstrates the special powers of the ministerial priesthood.

 

[DJim]

Afterburned:

I’m sure you have a difficult task replying to so many people who have taken up this thread. Take the time you need to answer the questions below. Periodically, I will be re-posting them until you are able to respond or until you let me know that you definitely are “refusing” to respond to them.

Thank you,

DJim

1. You never replied whether you were familiar with St. Ignatius’ letters–I’ll take the silence as a “no”.
2. The transmission of Scripture has also been subject to human error. In that sense, it is not more or less reliable than the Living Tradition of the Catholic Church.
3. I must emphasize strongly that Catholic Tradition is NOT simply “oral”. It ain’t. Do you understand this?
4. Can you tell me whether Mark 10:26 is divinely inspired, or not? I would appreciate knowing once and for all.

To which I now add a fifth:

1. Afterburned, are you saying that you have the authority to forgive my sins?

DJim

 

[Afterburned6387]

1. You never replied whether you were familiar with St. Ignatius’ letters–I’ll take the silence as a “no”.

No, but I’m getting familiar with them. I think you and I would even disagree with how to interpret those, however.

1. The transmission of Scripture has also been subject to human error. In that sense, it is not more or less reliable than the Living Tradition of the Catholic Church.

This statement seems unsupportable, nor have I seen any evidence that even those in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church make this claim. I could see your point if you rely on the Latin Vulgate, as it is just as prone to translation errors as say, the KJV, NIV, or ESV, but what human error would the original Greek be subject to? Especially when the most any two manuscripts of the original greek differ is maybe a word or two?

1. I must emphasize strongly that Catholic Tradition is NOT simply “oral”. It ain’t. Do you understand this?

Yes, I do understand this, I’ve been trying to go through Church texts to sort this out, but I find just as much doctrinal diversity as I would expect to find among Protestant texts.

1. Can you tell me whether Mark 10:26 is divinely inspired, or not? I would appreciate knowing once and for all.

And why wouldn’t it be?

To which I now add a fifth:

1. Afterburned, are you saying that you have the authority to forgive my sins?

Well, yes and no. Remember that Christianity is based on Judaism. “Binding” and “Loosing” were terms used by rabbis to define their “yoke”, or set of actions that are either allowed or disallowed in their interpretation of the Law. (gives new meaning to “my yoke is light” doesn’t it?) So, yes, I do have the authority to forgive your sins as long as the forgiveness I say you have is based on the “yoke” of Christ, or, Justification Sola Fide, but a process of “Sanctification” through works(Read Romans and Galatians to see this)

 

[Afterburned6387]

An interesting side note to the end of Judaical Symbolism. In the Passover Seder, at the end of a meal, a third glass of wine is served to those at the table, and a “birkat ha-mazon” is recited, or, in english a “Grace over the meal”.

"In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”

Luke 22:7-20

Its amazing what happens when you view Jesus in light of his jewishness.

(I say this less to prove a point as much as to share something that I found I think is pretty cool)

I’ve also, in reading through all kinds of things (church documents, summaries of romanism, commentaries by Calvin and Knox, etc. etc. etc.) I’ve begun to see the office of apostleship more and more as a teaching position, more than a divine preisthood. For instance, in the Judas proof that was submitted on this thread, we find

"Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.”
Acts 1:24-25

So here, we find a special ministry of the Apostles…but what is this ministry? Well, we find that explained a few lines earlier:

“Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.” Acts 1:21-22

So, then when the apostles died, who was there to witness to his resurrection, for after all, If Jesus did not return from the dead, what hope do we have that we will?

Roman Catholics would say, the succession of the Apostles, or, the bishops we have now…

There is a bit of a problem here, in the verse above, the requirement is that they were “with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us.” No modern bishop could ever fit this requirement, so what were we to do?

Answer: Go to the Gospels. Most church histories say that the Gospels of Matthew and John were written near the ends of their lives, and Mark and Luke probably as most of the key players were getting far along in years (All are dates between 60-90 AD, or 30 to 60 years after the Crucifixion). The writings of the NT were given to us in lieu of living, breathing Apostles to testify to the reality of Christ’s ressurection. The NT now carries on that aspect of apostleship

Because of this, I’m obliged to believe they had abilities that no one after them will have.

Also, as for the Keys to Heaven viz. Matthew 16:19 should also be attributed to the Teaching aspect of the apostolate, i.e. he has the teachings that will unlock the gates of Heaven, not that he determines who is saved, and who isn’t.

If this is the case, then the Teachings of the Apostles would be quite important, even those outside of the Scriptures proper. Once again however, key doctrines such as Purgatory, Veneration of Saints, Salvation by faith AND works, certain aspects Transubstantiation, primacy of the Romish bishop, etc. etc. are seemingly absent as far as I can find among the earliest church fathers. For instance, we find no mention of Purgatory until St. Gregory who supposedly saw Purgatory in a dream. (If the canon is closed, and we aren’t to trust spirits who give us additional information, this can’t be a vision of God)

Granted, the combined writings of the ECF’s constitutes a huge volume of work, that I as one mere amateur theologian can by no means read in its entirety, so I could be wrong.

Now, as that sounds like me taking a huge step towards junking Sola Scriptura, I do want to make clear. If the Apostles wrote the NT, and left something critical out, well, then they were quite derelict in their teaching duties, weren’t they?

Also, there is a potential for them (The ECF’s) to be wrong. For instance, the official RCC interpretation of Revelation is that all the blessings given to the Jews were transferred to the church, and that the Millennial Reign of Christ began at the Cross, and is purely symbolic. It adopted this interpretation, because after the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. and continued Roman domination, it was unthinkable that the Jewish Nation would ever again be a worldy nation, hence, a Symbolic interpretation of Revelation and Daniel known as Symbolic Amillenialism was adopted.

After the founding of the Jewish State in 1948, and their incredible victories over their reigonal rivals in the Six Days War, the Yom Kippur War, and other conflicts reminiscent of OT battles, a more literal interpretation of those texts is fast becoming far more plausible.

Human History is also a very relevant context for scriptural interpretation.

 

[DJim]

No, but I’m getting familiar with them. I think you and I would even disagree with how to interpret those, however.

Perhaps, but it’s hard to disagree about the fact that by about 110 AD the “catholic” Church referred to by Igantius possesses a threefold clergy of Bishop, Priest, and Deacon…

This statement seems unsupportable, nor have I seen any evidence that even those in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church make this claim. I could see your point if you rely on the Latin Vulgate, as it is just as prone to translation errors as say, the KJV, NIV, or ESV, but what human error would the original Greek be subject to? Especially when the most any two manuscripts of the original greek differ is maybe a word or two?

Well, we don’t have the original Greek–we have scribes’ copying copies of copies of copies over centuries. And if you think that the manuscripts only vary by a word or two, you are mistaken. There are multiple verses that are uncertain precisely because of human error in the copying…

Yes, I do understand this, I’ve been trying to go through Church texts to sort this out, but I find just as much doctrinal diversity as I would expect to find among Protestant texts.

As long as we’re not trying to contrast Scripture vs. “oral” Tradition, we’re off to a solid start…

And why wouldn’t it be?

The verse I cited is one of the many “uncertain” verses–check your translation to see if it’s included, or not.

My whole point here is not to denigrate Scripture or its reliability, but to demonstrate that it’s a completely false argument to state that Tradition is somehow subject to a form of human error which Scripture does not have to deal with. There are not just verses but at least a couple sections–such as the “Freer logion” (end of Mark’s Gospel) and the “adulteress episode” (jn 7:53 - 8:11) that are not reflected in all the best and most ancient manuscripts…

Well, yes and no. Remember that Christianity is based on Judaism. “Binding” and “Loosing” were terms used by rabbis to define their “yoke”, or set of actions that are either allowed or disallowed in their interpretation of the Law. (gives new meaning to “my yoke is light” doesn’t it?) So, yes, I do have the authority to forgive your sins as long as the forgiveness I say you have is based on the “yoke” of Christ, or, Justification Sola Fide, but a process of “Sanctification” through works(Read Romans and Galatians to see this)

I’m glad you appreciate Christianity’s Jewish roots–it may make your understanding of apostolic succession and the priesthood more simple.

Do you know, btw, how rabbis received their authority? Are you familiar with the “Semikhah”?

Semikhah is best described as “Mosaic Succession”–all elders, judges, scribes, and rabbis exercising authority in Israel during Jesus’ time received that authority via the “laying on of hands”–a chain of laying on of hands, in unbroken succession, all the way back to Moses.

Rabbis would also ordain their pupils in this manner.

Sound familiar?

DJim

 

[Afterburned6387]

Yes, Mosaic succession does sound familiar. I actually had a line in my last post that read something to the effect of:

“I would accept Ordination, but I still say there are certain abilities that ended at the apostles”

But it made the post ever so slightly over the maximum length, I deemed that the least significant part of the post, and so deleted it. Sorry.

The next problem then we have is with the Apostle Paul. He was not sent with the original twelve, but he was divinely given the apostleship. Is there anything that says this is the only time God has gone outside the normal succession?

Next, I would also state, Martin Luther was a Catholic Priest, as was John Knox, John Calvin was a monk, Zwingli was a Priest, Farel was a Priest. What made the Reformation such a great Historical Event was that it was those inside the Catholic church that instituted reforms. As such, is not possible, or even likely that Paul’s warning of those that would go out from them, but weren’t of them applies more to the unreformed Catholic Church than the reformers?(1 John 2:19)

Furthermore, doesn’t this provide an Apostolic Succession for the Protestants? The Catholic Church is already beginning to accept the Apostolic Succession of the Anglicans, so why do they reject that of the reformers?

I still think Apostolic Succession is a little silly, but to satisfy the RCC’s requirements, isn’t this sufficient?

As has been said before, Romanism’s strongest ally is Catholicism, yet Catholicism’s biggest weakness is Romanism.

And it would take an entirely separate thread to show all the times the Roman Church has proven in deed that it truly is NOT the catholic church, After all, how could the Ecumenical Council of Trent be Ecumenical if the Eastern Orthodox Church wasn’t even invited? The RCC has always seemed a bit arrogant to me.

Oh, and another thought.

God has always been in the habit of establishing a system, and working through it, i.e. the Mosaic Law, the New Covenant, etc. but in extreme circumstances is willing to work around his own law.

i.e. In the Old Testament, God would make exceptions to provide for widows for whom no male relative was left, outside of ordinances governing how to care for widows, or the both Roman Catholic and Protestant belief that children that die in infancy are taken to heaven outside of the proscribed plan of salvation.

After the Pornocracy, Indulgence Fiasco, etc. wouldn’t it make sense again for God to go outside the norms of his own succession to continue his church? after his people had so badly abused his gift?

 

[fellowChristian]

We are all called to the priesthood and there are those who are ordained by the laying on of hands and annointing, to carry out the mission from God. Here are but a few scripture verses that show God has certain men to be over all. As Catholics we believe in both ordained priests and the people being part of the priesthood.

**Exodus 18:25-26 **

25Moses chose able men out of all Israel and made them heads over the people, leaders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens.

**26They judged the people **at all times; the difficult dispute they would bring to Moses, but every minor dispute they themselves would judge.

**Numbers 16:28 **

28 Moses said, "By this you shall know that the LORD has sent me to do all these deeds; for this is **not my doing. **

**Exodus 40:15 **
15and you shall **anoint them **even as you have anointed their father, that they may minister as priests to Me; and their anointing will qualify them for a perpetual priesthood throughout their generations."

Numbers 27:18-20
18So the LORD said to Moses, "Take Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the Spirit, and lay your hand on him;

19and have him stand before Eleazar the priest and before all the congregation, and commission him in their sight.

20"You shall put some of your authority on him, in order that all the congregation of the sons of Israel may obey him.

**Matthew 10:40 **

40"He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.

**Luke 10:16 **

16"The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me."

**2 Corinthians 1:21-22 **

21Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and **anointed us is God, **
22who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge.

**1 Timothy 4:14 **

14Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the **laying on of hands by the presbytery. **

**1 Timothy 5:22 **

22 **Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily **and thereby share responsibility for the sins of others; keep yourself free from sin.

**2 Timothy 1:6 **
6For this reason I remind you to kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands.

**2 Thessalonians 3:14 **

14If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that person and do not associate with him, so that he will be put to shame.

**Deuteronomy 17:10-13 **
10"You shall do according to the terms of the verdict which they declare to you from that place which the LORD chooses; and you shall be careful to observe according to all that they teach you.

11"According to the terms of the law which they teach you, and according to the verdict which they tell you, you shall do; you shall not turn aside from the word which they declare to you, to the right or the left.

12"The man who acts presumptuously** by not listening to the priest who stands there to serve the LORD your God, nor to the judge, that man shall die; thus you shall purge the evil from Israel**.

13"Then all the people will hear and be afraid, and will not act presumptuously again.

 

[Afterburned6387]

please read the thread, the discussion is over whether the Ordained (which every form of Christendom accepts exists) have special abilities we don’t, like being able to Transubstantiate, Bless water, Give Penance, etc…

 

[fellowChristian]

"Next, I would also state, Martin Luther was a Catholic Priest, as was John Knox, John Calvin was a monk, Zwingli was a Priest, Farel was a Priest. "

**

Romans 11**

16If the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too.

17But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree,

18do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not **you who supports the root, but the root supports you. **

19You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.”

20Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith Do not be conceited, but fear;

21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.

22Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; **otherwise you also will be cut off. **

Those who disobey are cut off.

 

[Turtullian]

The next problem then we have is with the Apostle Paul. He was not sent with the original twelve, but he was divinely given the apostleship. Is there anything that says this is the only time God has gone outside the normal succession?

He still had to be sent by the Apostles. Hence why in Acts he goes to the Apostles to not only have his sight removed but his Baptism as well as his ordination.

Next, I would also state, Martin Luther was a Catholic Priest, as was John Knox, John Calvin was a monk, Zwingli was a Priest, Farel was a Priest. What made the Reformation such a great Historical Event was that it was those inside the Catholic church that instituted reforms.

A reform happens from within. you sever sever the body to create a reform. A House divided against it’self can not and does not stand. So the Body of Christ can not be divided against itself reform does not happen from without.

As such, is not possible, or even likely that Paul’s warning of those that would go out from them, but weren’t of them applies more to the unreformed Catholic Church than the reformers?(1 John 2:19)

No, becuase the Church itself can not stand against itself. Otherwise Hell has prevailed against it. It’s either there is no Church or that all of those who leave the visible body are truly gone.

Furthermore, doesn’t this provide an Apostolic Succession for the Protestants? The Catholic Church is already beginning to accept the Apostolic Succession of the Anglicans, so why do they reject that of the reformers?

The Catholic Church does not accept Anglican ordinations. All anglican priests who wish recieve holy orders must get ordained by a Catholic bishop.

I still think Apostolic Succession is a little silly, but to satisfy the RCC’s requirements, isn’t this sufficient?

No.

As has been said before, Romanism’s strongest ally is Catholicism, yet Catholicism’s biggest weakness is Romanism.

Pajorative insults aside, you have yet to make your case.

And it would take an entirely separate thread to show all the times the Roman Church has proven in deed that it truly is NOT the catholic church, After all, how could the Ecumenical Council of Trent be Ecumenical if the Eastern Orthodox Church wasn’t even invited? The RCC has always seemed a bit arrogant to me.

If Schismatic Bishops need to attend in order for an ecumenical counci to be oh I don’t know ecumenical, then you should start chucking out all of the ecumenical councils. After all at Nicaea I the Arian Bishops didn’t attend as neither did they at 1 constantinople. The Monophysites themselves boycotted Chalcedon. I guess Chalcedon wasn’t ecumenical because Monophysite bishops didn’t attend.

Oh, and another thought.

God has always been in the habit of establishing a system, and working through it, i.e. the Mosaic Law, the New Covenant, etc. but in extreme circumstances is willing to work around his own law.

Point being?

i.e. In the Old Testament, God would make exceptions to provide for widows for whom no male relative was left, outside of ordinances governing how to care for widows, or the both Roman Catholic and Protestant belief that children that die in infancy are taken to heaven outside of the proscribed plan of salvation.

Actually the Church leaves unborn babies to God. If babies automatically entered heaven then what point is Jesus’s atonement and what point is there of living? Why doesn’t God just slay us all in the womb. Not only that this line of thinking itself leads to an acceptance of abortion.

[quoute]
After the Pornocracy,
Red herring as impeccability is not the issue.

Indulgence Fiasco,

Considering the church never tuaght indulgences could be sold.

etc. wouldn’t it make sense again for God to go outside the norms of his own succession to continue his church? after his people had so badly abused his gift?

God made a promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against his church. If the Church has fallen into error for even a second it makes a mockery of God’s promise and it makes a mockery out of scripture, and it makes a mockery of Christians in general. For how can I believe God when God said that the gates of hell would not prevail against it and used alot of euphamism to show that the church would be Visible to the naked eye.

 

[tenax_propositi]

Afterburned - you haven’t really engaged with the arguments I made earlier. The quotes from the early fathers contradicts your view. How can you so easily set aside such crucial historic evidence?