V
Vixit
Guest
Exactly. Which is why I do not vote for the party of war, either. In just the last decade American troops have killed hundreds of thousands of people, most of them innocent. Not a very ‘natural’ death for them…
- Status
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes; this “plurality of elders” is, of course, the Magisterium.
Indeed. What Scriptural evidence is there for this?
G
guanophore
Guest
I think the Magesterium is different. It is an Aposotlic College, comprised only of bishops -successors of the Aposltes.
I think he has a Presbyterian view, which I am not sure includes bishops at all, and certainly not a Pope. Remember, they wanted to jettison all the the authority that existed in Catholicism, from the Pope to the local bishops. They considered them all corrupt, and indeed, most of them were.
James 5:14-17Indeed. What Scriptural evidence is there for this?
14 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 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. 16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.
I am not sure why a whole passel of priests is necessary to heal the sick, but there it is. It sounds like there is a group of priests available that can be called upon to anoint the sick.
The reference to the prayer of the righteous is a reference to the priestly prayer, because it is assumed the priest is faithful and righteous. Also, we know that auricular confession has been practiced from the beginning. The Catholic faith encourages the confession of sins, and one can confess to whomever they choose, but only the priest has the authority to remit the sins. Priests, of course, confess to other priests. When all sins are confessed, prayer is more effective.
Peter directs his letter to a plurality of elders:
1 Peter 5:1-3
5:1 So I exhort the** elders **among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed. 2 Tend the flock of God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for shameful gain but eagerly, 3 not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock.
1 Peter 5:4-5
5 Likewise you that are younger be subject to the elders
The collection of Paul and Barnabas was delivered to a group of elders:
Acts 11:29-30
29 And the disciples determined, every one according to his ability, to send relief to the brethren who lived in Judea; 30 and they did so, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul.
Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in every church before moving on:
Acts 14:23
23 And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they believed.
There was a plurality of elders at the Council of Jerusalem. Acts 15:1-3
2 And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.
Acts 15:6 6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.
When you read this account in Acts 15, the elders appear to be on par with the Apostles.
When Paul is headed to Rome…Acts 20:17-18
17 And from Mile’tus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church. 18 And when they came to him, he said to them…
Clearly there is also a group of elders still in Jerusalem, as Paul passes through there again on the way to Rome. Acts 21:17-18
17 When we had come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James; and all the elders were present.
In his letter to Timothy, Paul makes reference to his ordination as bishop:
1 Tim 4:11-15
11 Command and teach these things. 12 Let no one despise your youth, but set the believers an example in speech and conduct, in love, in faith, in purity. 13 Till I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. 14 Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when **the council of elders laid their hands upon you. **
I think all these Scriptural references can be used to support the Presbyterian conception of the plurality of leadership in the early Church.
E
estesbob
Guest
The glaringly obvious lack of mention of Saola Scriptura for 1500 years, the glaring lack of the mention of Sola Fidelis for 1500 years.right, the glaringly obvious lack of mention of Mary in the first two centuries, the glaringly obvious lack of use of the term “priest” wrt any minister of the church in those first two centuries, the glaringly obvious lack of a unified belief in a real somatic presence (until after it was advocated by the 4th century Antiochian school) and add to that the glaringly obvious lack of a belief in a real somatic presence by Augustine, the glaringly obvious lack of banking and trading in grace as if it was a common commodity and the glaringly obvious lack of a monarchical bishop in parts on the empire during the first centuries…yep, the “Catholicity” of the earliest church is as glaringly obvious as the magnificence of the emperor’s new clothes.
.
How about we resolve these two problems before we start looking at the relatively mino,r mostly semantic problems(or in the case of Augustine flat-out wrong) based on your personal interpretation of the teachings of early church . And since you are an Augustinian fan tell us what you think about this:
“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s table. . . . That bread that you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).
“Nobody eats this flesh without previously adoring it” (Explanation of the Psalms 99).
“He took flesh from the flesh of Mary . . . and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation. . . . We do sin by not adoring” (ibid).
ANDTHIS
"We believe also in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church. For heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God; schismatics, however, withdraw from fraternal love by hostile separations, although they believe the same things we do. Consequently, neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church; not heretics, because the Church loves God; and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor" (*Faith and the Creed *10:21 [A.D. 393]).
C
CMatt25
Guest
In faith our Lord has risen Guan! Alleluia! Happy Easter.
Well Guan, personally I myself do not know most, do not walk in others’ shoes, and can not speak for, nor judge “most Cafeteria Catholics”. I too have my own logs before I should probably start plucking out eyes whether away from here or not. Though the imperfect human being I am, I may fail and I ask forgiveness of anyone if I have or ever judge anyone here.
Guan many things in the Bible are not taken literally. Time does not allow me to post every single one. Many do not take literally that earth and man were formed in a matter of 144 hrs with as Scripture tells us, the evening and the morning ( 24 hrs) being a day. We don’t do all that stoning. And many things of course found in the OT. And just a few to mention from the NT as well which come to mind. We don’t for instance take Christ literally when He says He’s a vine or a lamb or a gate. Again women I thank God are not kept silent in churches. And have you seen many folks cutting off their hands and feet or plucking out their eyes lately Guan? I haven’t.
Guan, what I make a case for and say is that we walk by faith. The Holy Spirit is given to us to walk and study and search with in faith. You I imagine searched and determined it is indeed your faith what the Catholic Church teaches. That’s great! That is your faith Guan. Another though may search and determine the Catholic Church has strayed. We don’t need to go into all the details. We know the many things our Protestant brothers and sisters protest to in good faith, Guan.
It is faith we have Guan. Again peace be with you and again Easter blessings to you.
E
estesbob
Guest
The Holy Spirit has led us to walk in 10,000 different directions? What is really incredible is that so many people are led by the Holy Spirit to a truth the just happens to embrace their political and secular views.
We do indeed know there are many things our Protestant brothers and sisters protest in good faith. We also know that they are wrong. It is no kindness to affirm the beliefs of people who have rejected the truth.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Sigh. Did I say that? Did I say there are 10,000 or 30,000 or whatever number people like to throw around as however many churches there are or truths? No. That is what would make me a relativist. I say we walk by faith. Not by sight. Until in faith His 2nd Coming and He descends from the clouds or whatever is to happen for one’s faith to be proven for certain. Easter well wishes to you Bob.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Good response. (IMHO!)
I especially like the part about the subjective understanding of the objective moral standard not always meshing.
That’s why a faithful believer of any religion should always be “doing” Catechesis. Jews refresh or update or renew their knowledge all the time. So do various Protestant sects. (Devout Mormon students used to have something during the weekdays called “seminary.” My close high school friends attended that before school on weekdays, can you imagine. Many Protestants attend educational bible sessions on Sunday, before services; others attend these during the weekday evenings.) It is understood in various religions that (1) faith is not a static thing, even though teachings are; (2) as we grow and expand our life experiences, we have opportunities to converse more fully about the intersection of faith and life, enriching ourselves and others; (3) life presents us with temptations to accommodate our faith to our life, rather than vice-versa
C
CMatt25
Guest
I think you make a good point. There are those who like to go around saying people allow their politics to form their faith. Yet if I understand you correctly, you give an example of how it is your faith on the totality of life issues that affects how or if you vote. And not the other way around. You make the best decision you can on what to do in an imperfect political arena. Peace.
V
Vixit
Guest
Exactly. I have not voted at all in most of the presidential elections. I am highly involved in local and state elections where I know many Catholics who run for office, and vote for them. I generally can find nothing redeeming about the lousy choice of presidential candidates we are given, and I refuse to vote for the ‘lesser of two evils.’
E
estesbob
Guest
The Church disagrees with you. No issue or combination of issues trumps abortion. I know you reject this but the lurkers need to know that that when people talk about totality of issues they are really saying they reject Church teaching on abortion.
E
estesbob
Guest
In which case you accede to the culture of death as archbishop Chapuy put it is not a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils-it is a matter of choosing to lessen evil.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I disagree with what you say people are really saying. That appears to be similar to Protestants telling Catholics what we believe.
G
guanophore
Guest
Don’t you read any of the research? People self identify as Catholic, then state that they reject fundamental tenents of the Apostolic faith! Anyway, logs only block your vision when you are judging the souls of others, not when you are reading the research.
You are proud of being a relativist, and they are proud of themselves that they do not restrict their lifestyles based upon their “modern understanding” of science and ethics.
This is not about judging the souls of others, CMatt, it is about judging the presence of revealed Truth. I know you believe there is much in Scripture that does not apply to you, so maybe this Teaching of Jesus will not carry any weight, either:
John 7:24
24 Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment."
Right judgement, for Catholics, includes accepting what God has revealed about Himself.
On what basis do you decide which ones are, and which one’s arent? I agree with you, but I unlike you, I accept the Apostolic Teaching that Jesus revealed to the Church how to interpret the Scriptures, and He promised to lead the Church into “all Truth”. Therefore, I can trust His very great and precious promises through His revelation about which parts apply to me.
Again, I agree with you. But the Kingdom of God is a monarchy (Jesus is her Head) so it is not a matter of majority opinion.
Why not? On what basis do you decide you should not follow those commandments?
Apparently you do not.
Just because something is literal does not mean it exists in the tangible plane. For the Catholics, these are literal truths. They exist in the spiritual plane as a reality.
By what authority do you decide that women are allowed to speak in Church?Again women I thank God are not kept silent in churches. And have you seen many folks cutting off their hands and feet or plucking out their eyes lately Guan? I haven’t.
By what standard to you determine that Jesus is using hyperbole?
As you have said, your faith begins and ends with your own interpretations. You have made yourself the standard of what you would like to believe and practice. God created you with the freedom to do this.
Yes, but you seem to believe that the HS will reveal something to you that is opposite of what He has revealed to His One Bride, the Church. I wonder what would make you think that?
I made a conscious choice to accept the things I don’t understand. That is what the obedience of faith is. I have accepted that there are things I may never understand, and things, as you say, I will not understand until He comes again.
And you believe the HS is leading us both?
Why would God lead people in opposite directions?
G
guanophore
Guest
You did not need to say it, CM. It is common knowledge. It is the result of relativism. The method you are using, to seek your own Truth in separation from what God has revealed is what produces all this fragmentation. There are as many interpretations as there are belly buttons. That is why Jesus taught unity. If we are of "one mind’ as the Apostles command, then one person will not need to depart from the Truth and go off seeking something that suits him apart from what God has already revealed.
No. What makes you a relativist is your rejection of objective Truth. You say we can 't know the truth, and we are all left to pursue “in faith” whatever truth we can find, since we cannot know the Truth until Jesus comes again.
I rest my case.
V
Vixit
Guest
Wrong, and I am offended that you presume to know my thoughts. If I supported abortion, I’d vote Democrat. I do not vote Republican because I know that they don’t give a **** about abortion. They had complete control of the White House for several years and could have ended abortion for good. They had that ability. They refused. Why? Because REPUBLICANS NEED ABORTION. It is the only issue that gets them votes anymore, because people have long ago figured out that they have absolutely no Christian morality in any other area. They are greedy, warmongering, selfish bigots who are about as un-Christian as one can get, and the ONLY reason they keep getting the Christian vote is the abortion issue. They will NEVER end abortion and deprive themselves of their cash cow. THAT is why I don’t vote for them, either.
E
estesbob
Guest
An attitude that concedes the political playing field to those who support the culture of death. And thus the slaughter continues while people of good faith sit on the sidelines letting the perfect be the enemy of the possible
G
guanophore
Guest
V
Vixit
Guest
Your link goes nowhere…
V
Vixit
Guest
Wrong. Whether you think it a worthless gesture, I vote in local and state elections for good Catholics who I know personally, hoping that they will be able to make a fundamental change in the way people think and the way higher political candidates are chosen. I vote for third parties when they seem to have a good moral stance, whether you consider it a vote wasted or not. As I just said, I know for a fact that the Republican party will never end abortion (I heard this from a Republican student who worked at the office of one of my state’s congresspersons on an internship). So I would submit that you voting for one continues the support of the culture of death. But worse, you also continue the culture of war, culture of theft, culture of economic slavery, and culture of immorality that the Republicans stand for.
- Status