S
spina1953
Guest
To my way of thinking, Sola Scriptura is not just a dead horse but the hidden author of chaos.
- Status
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
Because INDIVIDUALS (or inDUHviduals for those who appreciate Scott Adams) within the Church can and do err. I hope you can see the difference.
At what point does their teaching reflect the historic understanding of what the Bible teaches about infant Baptism? Further, as you and I have discussed, the notion that infant baptism is even only implicit is debatable. So, regardless what they teach, or what they say sola scriptura is, it seems scripture, as witnessed by Tradition, confirms infant baptism.
But I understand your point. It is like the debate about papal supremacy amongst communions that defend Tradition and Scripture.
Jon
S
SyCarl
Guest
It is not at all clear, for example, that Jesus intended to there to be a hierarchy with bishops and priests.Not at all. Scripture is clear that Jesus intended to found a visible church with a hierarchy that could be identified. I’ll keep my powder dry on that for now.
- In the New Testament the Greek word for priest is never used to describe Christian clergy. It is only used to described the priesthood of all believers. The clergy are deacons, elders and overseers. The last two offices, which the Catholic Church has differentiated as priests and bishops, were the same office is made clear in Paul’s letter to Titus.
This is witnessed as well by Jerome who indicated that bishops were a subsequent development.
Jerome (Letter 146)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.v.CXLVI.html
- Paul wrote to 7 different to churches. In only one of his letters does he address the clergy. This is in Philippians where he mentions overseers and deacons. Note that the overseers was plural indicating more than one in the city. The failure to address the clergy in each letter could be taken to indicate these offices had not been appointed in each church.
- In his various letters, Ignatius refers to only bishops and deacons. No mention of separate priests.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Apparently you lack the understanding of development-no offense. Protestants expect everything to be clearly explained in the Bible. Do you have anu issues with the NT canon? No where is it mentioned at all.
P
pocohombre
Guest
Don’t know.#485 post looked pretty good.
P
pocohombre
Guest
The context was that I was a dead horse,out of gas, on this subject ,hibernating, temporary burn out-as you said elsewhere , me a mere finite human, and I would say flawed in all ways. You all deserve my best, and when physically or mentally or spiritually weak,i must repose for awhile. Certainly SS is not a dead horse,as the thread marches easily on.
S
SyCarl
Guest
You seem to be forgetting what you are trying to do. You are trying to prove the Bible is inspired from historical evidence. That part of what is said in Scripture is shown to be historical, does not mean that everything it says is accurate so we do not have to consider everything it tell us He says is true at this stage in the proof. There are other examples of people being raised from the dead in Scripture without them being God. For example, Elijah raised the widow’s son Many would also question the historicity of the Resurrection. If it can be firmly established historically, why is everyone not Christian?
Again at this point you have not proved what Jesus promised is accurately recorded in Scripture so you cannot assume it as part of your proof. As well, saying it stands to reason is really just presenting your interpretation of what Jesus promised. Jesus gave authority to His apostles. He does not say they can pass on the same authority to successors. As I pointed out He gave the apostles authority to heal. They also raised the dead. Do the bishops and priests of the Catholic Church have this authority? If not why does it stand to reason that they have any of the authority given to the apostles. Healing and raising the dead are quite visible displays. Why is the authority of the Church now only in things that cannot be visibly verified or proved?
Also we see in Acts what the requirements to succeed an apostle were.
Is there anyone who can meet this requirement now or can show direct appointment from Jesus like Paul?
Of course there is a difference between the Bible and the Iliad. What I am pointing out is that the method you are trying to use to prove the inspiration of Scripture can be applied in the same way. Some things in the Bible can be shown to be historically true so you say we can accept everything it says. I am saying that some things in the Iliad can be shown to be historically true. By your reasoning we should therefore be able to able to accept the rest of what it says is true.Sure. There is no difference between the Bible and Illiad whatsoever. This every grade school boy knows well.
Again you cannot rely on the accuracy of what the Bible says Jesus’ promises are until you have proved that it is inspired. If we accept as proven that Jesus did arise that still does not prove He claimed to be God. And again there is the problem of interpreting what the promises mean. You are Catholic because your interpretation agrees with the Church’s interpretation but that still depends on your interpretation of what is said. If your interpretation did not agree with the Catholic Church’s, which many people’s does not, you would not be a Catholic.
P
Porknpie
Guest
the first bishops were the twelve apostles. For sure Christ knew what he was doing.
And we can read what the early Church wrote about about the hierarchy, Catholic bishops included. Presbuteros in Greek means Priest.** Read more here.**
“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God**. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop**. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyraens, 8 (c. A.D. 110).
**“Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church…**Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers. Since this, then, is founded on the divine law, I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the Church; when the Church is established in the bishop and the clergy, and all who stand fast in the faith.” Cyprian, To the Lasped, Epistle 26/33 (A.D. 250).
**“Who can test himself by the rules and standards which Paul laid down for bishops and presbyters, **that they are to be temperate, sober-minded, not given to wine, no strikers, apt to teach, blameless in all things, and beyond the reach of the wicked, without finding considerable deflection from the straight line of the rules?” Gregory of Nazianzen, In Defense of his Flight, 69 (ante A.D. 389).
St Ignatius refers not only to bishops, priest and deacons, but the proper Eucharist, the Real Presence of Christ, not a symbolic belief invented some 1,500 years later by breaking from the apostolic faith and the literal words of Jesus in John 6 understood by Catholic and Orthodox alike for 2,000 years.
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).
“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have** we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”** Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165). Taught by whom: Christ taught the apostles and the apostles taught their descendants.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Well, there were only 13 people at the Last Supper.
Don’t you see how the work gets a lot bigger pretty fast and then they need to ordain Deacons with Stephen and the others.
And as we read further into Scriptures we see the following (From another thread I replied to):
If we look at the whole of Scriptures, we can see different orders in Church Government.
We (those that are not ordained) are the laity. We are known as “saints” Romans 1:7). And yes, we are also a priesthood. We can look at a little more in 1st Peter here: 1 Peter 2:4-10. Where priesthood is mentioned twice. So yes we are a priesthood. But when we look at the rest of Scriptures, we see that there are orders in this priesthood.
We see the Deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8-13 and in Acts 6:3. So we see different responsibilities between the Deacons and the rest of the laity. However, the Deacons are still part of the laity because they come from them. That does not mean that all the laity has the same responsibility as the Deacons.
We see the Presbyters/Elders (Priests) in 1 Timothy 5:17, in Acts 14:23 and in Titus 1:5. This is not the same Levite Priesthood. This is a Priesthood under our High Priest - Jesus Christ. These Priests are charged to preaching and teaching, as indicated in 1 Tim 5:17 above. However, the Priests also come from the laity. That does not mean that all the laity has the same responsibility as the Priests. Or that the Deacons have the same responsibility as the Priest.
You see where this is going. Let’s continue.
We also see the Bishops (Overseers and also Elders at times) in 1 Timothy 3:1-2 and in Titus 1:7-9. The Bishops “oversee” the laity and the ordained (Deacons and Priests) in an assigned area. When we look at the Church’s 1st Council in Jerusalem in Acts 15, specifically verse 6 - we see that the non-ordained laity was not there to determine the Church’s direction - it was “The Apostles and the Elders”. The leadership of the Church. However, the Bishops also come from the laity. That does not mean that all the laity has the same responsibilities as the Bishops. Or that the Deacons and the Priests have the same responsibility as the Bishop.
And this order has been carried out since our Lord established His Church with the Apostles and the Apostles then established more of His Churches throughout the world.
P
Porknpie
Guest
Sy,
So how do you know that the books in your bible are all inspired and inerrant? Neither did Jesus say which writings are and are not inspired.
You are trusting an authority outside of scripture to say what is scripture.
The same authority that Christ sent the Holy Spirit to, to guide to all Truth until the end of time on faith and morals.
Way before there was a bible, there was The Catholic Church. The bible was written by, for and about the Catholic Church in part for instruction and faith building but it was also to have a universal set of readings for Mass. You are holding in your hands a Catholic book, but you are likely missing 7 books of scripture, removed by a printing press.
P
Porknpie
Guest
Hi Jon,
Journey back to 100, 200, 300 ad. Do you believe your statement above to be true at that time? Taking your position above, can the statement by true today but not true in 200 ad? Should not your statement always have been true?
Given a choice between the two, and the logic above (scripture comes from Tradition), I would argue the reverse of your statement. I would then argue it has always been the case.
But you know we hold scripture and Tradition as equals and they never contradict each other.
PnP
S
SyCarl
Guest
Yes he did mention presbyters but this is not the Greek word for priest. The Greek for priest is hiereus. The English word priest is derived from the Greek word presbuteros but the meaning of the Greek is elder, not priest. In any event, he equates the presbyters with the apostles. He equates a bishop with God.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.iii.vi.html
He also didn’t seem to think he would have a successor.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.v.ix.html
[/quote]
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Because individuals can teach falsely. The Church cannot.
Paul says, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!” (Galatians 1:8) This is a stern warning not to deviate from the (oral) Tradition that he has handed on to the Galatians, and while he is speaking theoretically here, the Holy Spirit did not actually allow him to teach false doctrine.
Peter withdrew from eating with the Gentiles due to pressure from the circumcision group under the direction of James. So much for the “brother” of the Lord, the great leader of the Jerusalem church. But Peter did not formally teach others to do the same. The Catholic Church does not define infallibility as “teaching by example”. Jesus told his followers that they MUST obey the Pharisees because they sat in Moses’ seat. He warned them not to practice what they DID. So, their teaching, not their actions, was authoritative. Same with Peter.
You’ve answered your own question; individuals - even large groups of them, may fall into error. The Church as a whole may not.
A bit of rhetorical hyperbole perhaps? For He also said, “the gates of hell will not prevail against it” meaning that the Church would not be overcome.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Bishop, Priest and Deacon
catholic.com/library/Bishop_Priest_and_Deacon.asp
The sacrament of holy orders is conferred in three ranks of clergy: bishops, priests, and deacons.
Bishops (episcopoi) have the care of multiple congregations and appoint, ordain, and discipline priests and deacons. They sometimes appear to be called “evangelists” in the New Testament. Examples of first-century bishops include Timothy and Titus (1 Tim. 5:19–22; 2 Tim. 4:5; Titus 1:5).
Priests (presbuteroi) are also known as “presbyters” or “elders.” In fact, the English term “priest” is simply a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros. They have the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15).
Deacons (diakonoi) are the assistants of the bishops and are responsible for teaching and administering certain Church tasks, such as the distribution of food (Acts 6:1–6).
In the apostolic age, the terms for these offices were still somewhat fluid. Sometimes a term would be used in a technical sense as the title for an office, sometimes not. This non-technical use of the terms even exists today, as when the term is used in many churches (both Protestant and Catholic) to refer to either ordained ministers (as in “My minister visited him”) or non-ordained individuals. (In a Protestant church one might hear “He is a worship minister,” while in a Catholic church one might hear “He is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.”)
Thus, in the apostolic age Paul sometimes described himself as a diakonos (“servant” or “minister”; cf. 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph. 3:7), even though he held an office much higher than that of a deacon, that of apostle.
Similarly, on one occasion Peter described himself as a “fellow elder,” [1 Pet. 5:1] even though he, being an apostle, also had a much higher office than that of an ordinary elder.
The term for bishop, episcopos (“overseer”), was also fluid in meaning. Sometimes it designated the overseer of an individual congregation (the priest), sometimes the person who was the overseer of all the congregations in a city or area (the bishop or evangelist), and sometimes simply the highest-ranking clergyman in the local church—who could be an apostle, if one were staying there at the time.
Although the terms “bishop,” “priest,” and “deacon” were somewhat fluid in the apostolic age, by the beginning of the second century they had achieved the fixed form in which they are used today to designate the three offices whose functions are clearly distinct in the New Testament.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
P
Porknpie
Guest
Sy, do I understand then that you disagree with the catholic.com tract that I linked to? It says
To be consistent, you believe then St Ignatius is referring to Deacons, Bishops and the apostles? The apostles weren’t around in 110ad.
“Now, therefore, it has been my privilege to see you in the person of your God-inspired bishop, Damas; and in the persons of your worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius; and my fellow-servant, the deacon, Zotion. What a delight is his company! For** he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and ** to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ” (Letter to the Magnesians 2 [A.D. 110]).
Probably not, since the Church in those days was at the well-spring of Tradition, and had not been subjected to Schism and division as we see it today (not to say there wasn’t division).
I wouldn’t necessarily describe scripture as “coming from” Tradition, but that said, I personally, would much prefer to see Tradition with no contradictions, and in perfect harmony with scripture, so we could return to that model.
Wish I could.
Jon
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Noted. Twice.
Gee, if we keep this up, we can get our discussions down to a serious of post numbers alone:
R: 216.
J: Yes, but 247.
R: Already answered…198 and 199…(sorry that was so long, but it needed to be said).
J: But you completely undervalued 186…
R: Oh, please, not 186 again…haven’t we beaten that to death?
J: 186, 186, 186!
- Status