P
Pax
Guest
I think I have answered this remark. Are you convinced about deacons, priests, and bishops?
- Status
G
Giver
Guest
Pax, even if as you say an elder was an ordained priest, do you expect me to believe that there were that many elders to consecrate the Eucharist in all the different homes? Also they had a word for priest so if elders were priest than why didn’t they just use the word priest instead of elder?
Do you think that the Christian appointed elders (priest) before they even knew Jesus had risen? Because Cleopas and his friend were going to have communion with Jesus before they even knew He was Jesus?
Giver
(Luke 24: 18-32) they were going to have communion not realizing that it was Jesus they were with. Where was your ministerial priest?
J
jim1130
Guest
Let’s see: Luke 24:30. And it came to pass, whilst he (Jesus) was at table with them, he took bread and blessed and brake and gave to them. 24:31. And their eyes were opened: and they knew him. And he (Jesus) vanished out of their sight.
It was Jesus who presided over the breaking of the bread, not the Apostles. Could you safely say that the ministerial priest at that moment was Jesus?
G
Giver
Guest
Cleopas and his friend didn’t see anything wrong and were accepting the fact they were receiving communion. They didn’t know who Jesus was.
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
We make no such assumption. We have the historical record which proves that Ss. Peter & Paul were martyred in Rome, and founded the Church there. We also have the New Testament which tells us what a bishop is, and what his duties are. We have New Testament evidence which tells us what a priest is, and what his duties are. We have New Testament evidence which tells us what a deacon is, and what his duties are. Saint Ignatius of Antioch says, “Whereever the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church”. This is because the bishops are ordained through the laying on of hands, way back to the apostles. Saint Linus succeeded Saint Peter as the 2nd pope. In Acts 1:20 we see that Saint Peter called for the election of a new Bishop to replace that of Judas, it is the office of the bishop which is important, not necessarily the man.
J
jim1130
Guest
They invited Jesus to stay because it was late, and no doubt were inspired by the sharing of what He knew.
24:28. And they drew nigh to the town whither they were going: and he made as though he would go farther.
24:29. But they constrained him, saying: Stay with us, because it is towards evening and the day is now far spent. And he went in with them.
If he was at the table with them, was he dining with them until he took the bread, blessed, and broke it? Up until then, was it a regular supper?
24:30. And it came to pass, whilst he was at table with them, he took bread and blessed and brake and gave to them.
And at that point, when he broke the bread, did they realize what had happened?
24:31. And their eyes were opened: and they knew him. And he vanished out of their sight.
24:32. And they said one to the other: Was not our heart burning within us, whilst he spoke in the way and opened to us the scriptures?
24:33. And rising up, the same hour, they went back to Jerusalem: and they found the eleven gathered together, and those that were with them,
24:34. Saying: The Lord is risen indeed and hath appeared to Simon.
24:35. And they told what things were done in the way: and how they knew him in the breaking of bread.
G
Giver
Guest
Semper Fi:
And the Holy Spirit filled the office.
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
No. Read the whole chapter. Matthias was selected to succeed Judas. I really believe you should start a new thread to discuss your concerns, because you hijacked this thread in the beginning of it. We have addressed the OP’s concerns.
God bless,
M
mark_a
Guest
Hello Giver,
I want to be sure I understand your ideas about this thread topic. After reading many of your posts, it seems that :
I want to be sure I understand your ideas about this thread topic. After reading many of your posts, it seems that :
*]you object to calling anyone “father”
*]you object to the ministerial priesthood
*]that the context of Jesus’ statement “call no man father” forbids the ministerial priesthood
Do I correctly understand you? Is there a correlation between the above?
Thanks for your help.
J
jessi
Guest
because jesus told the discples that they were to be called Rabbi, and they were to teach . So really saying Father is just a way of showing respect to the priest because he is your teacher.
P
Pax
Guest
Robert,
What I expect you to be believe is simple. I expect you to believe the truth of the scriptures. The scriptures do not say that every Christian went to their own homes “alone.” It seems pretty obvious that people would assemble in Christian homes in groups to celebrate the Eucharist. In Acts 1 we are told that Peter and the disciples gathered in the upper room and that the company numbered appoximately 120. This happenened even prior to Pentecost. Obviously, they gathered in groups and there is no need for the priests to number in a quantity equivalent to the number of Christian homes.
Moreover, these disciples were eyewitnesses to Jesus and it is likely that the first elders were picked from this group. The apostles were not a well trained management machine but they knew what they were doing after Pentecost. Immediately upon preaching after Pentecost, the apostles converted 3000 people in 1 day[Acts 2:41]. The outpouring of grace recorded throughout the entirety of Acts is mind boggling. It would seem apparent that their would be the ordination of the necessary priests commensurate to the growth in converts.
The book of Acts records plenty concerning the elders/priests and never suggests that there was a shortage of elders in the ministry. I will again quote Acts 14:23. It says:
“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.” Obviously, when the first Christians were operating in home based churches their needs were met with these appointments.
You are making a huge stretch to justify your position against the ministerial priesthood.
P
Pax
Guest
Okay…it’s fairly obvious that there have been many individual bishops and priests during church history that were not observing all of the NT commands. This does not mean that the hierarchy is invalid. We have many other priests and bishops that upheld the NT commands with heroic virtue. Their virtue in fulfilling all of the NT commands does not validate or invalidate the hierarchical structure either. Jesus established a church and promised that He would remain with it until the end of time. He also promised that that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. Jesus established the church and set up a hierarchy. It is the actions and words of Jesus that validate the hierarchy, the sacraments, the priesthood, and everything else that we as Catholics believe.
If the Church and all of its elements depended upon our human virtue for its validity, the church would have collapsed and would not exist. Instead we see a two thousand year old miracle in our midst that has survived our worst sins by way of grace and the promises of Jesus.
I hope, Robert, that you will carefully ponder the following verses of scripture:
2 Peter 2:1-2
BUT FALSE prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled.
Please notice that Peter warns us that false teachers will come from our own Christian ranks. Moreover, the evil wrought by these people from within our ranks will cause many to follow them and because of their evil the way of truth will be reviled. Those that have done wrong and led people astray make the Church look bad. Thus, the Church, which is the body of Christ and the way of truth, is reviled.
Do not revile the Church for the historical failings that may exist among the members. Instead, look to the promises of Jesus and see the miracle that stands before you.
G
Giver
Guest
Pax, You are making excuses for the church, and then justifying it, with out even addressing the fact that the church isn’t teaching the word of God. Next it sounds like you are calling me a false profit because I am pointing out some of the churches false teachings.
In Revelation John tells us that Jesus pointed out many of the Churches errors. If the Church was already making errors, what makes you think that it isn’t still doing so?
(2 Peter 1:3-11) “By his divine power, he has given us all the things that we need for life and for true devotion, bringing us to know God Himself, who has called us by his own glory and goodness. In making these gifts, he has given us the guarantee of something very great and wonderful to come: through them you will be able to share the divine nature and to escape corruption in a world that is sunk in vice. But to attain this, you will have to do your utmost yourselves, adding goodness to the faith that you have, understanding to your goodness, self-control to your understanding, patience to your self-control, true devotion to your patience, kindness towards your fellow men to your devotion, and, the this kindness, love. If you have a generous supply of these, they will not leave you ineffectual or unproductive: they will bring you to a real knowledge or our Lord Jesus Christ. But without them a man is blind or else shortsighted; he has forgotten how his past sins were washed away. Brothers, you have been called and chosen: work all the harder to justify it. If you do all these things there is no danger that you will ever fall away. In this way you will be granted admittance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ.”
You notice Peter said past sins were washed away, he didn’t say sin they were committing, because he knew Christians no longer sinned, and John tells us that anyone who sins has never seen him or known him?
You dare call me a false prophet because I am pointing out Scripture that isn’t understood or taught by the church?
(1 John 3:5-6) “Now you know that he appeared in order to abolish sin, and that in him there is no sin; anyone who lives in God does not sin, and anyone who sins has never seen him or known him.”
Giver
In Revelation John tells us that Jesus pointed out many of the Churches errors. If the Church was already making errors, what makes you think that it isn’t still doing so?
(2 Peter 1:3-11) “By his divine power, he has given us all the things that we need for life and for true devotion, bringing us to know God Himself, who has called us by his own glory and goodness. In making these gifts, he has given us the guarantee of something very great and wonderful to come: through them you will be able to share the divine nature and to escape corruption in a world that is sunk in vice. But to attain this, you will have to do your utmost yourselves, adding goodness to the faith that you have, understanding to your goodness, self-control to your understanding, patience to your self-control, true devotion to your patience, kindness towards your fellow men to your devotion, and, the this kindness, love. If you have a generous supply of these, they will not leave you ineffectual or unproductive: they will bring you to a real knowledge or our Lord Jesus Christ. But without them a man is blind or else shortsighted; he has forgotten how his past sins were washed away. Brothers, you have been called and chosen: work all the harder to justify it. If you do all these things there is no danger that you will ever fall away. In this way you will be granted admittance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ.”
You notice Peter said past sins were washed away, he didn’t say sin they were committing, because he knew Christians no longer sinned, and John tells us that anyone who sins has never seen him or known him?
You dare call me a false prophet because I am pointing out Scripture that isn’t understood or taught by the church?
(1 John 3:5-6) “Now you know that he appeared in order to abolish sin, and that in him there is no sin; anyone who lives in God does not sin, and anyone who sins has never seen him or known him.”
Giver
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
Giver,
Please start new threads so that more people can respond to your queries. You are continuing to hijack this one. I will address one assertion you make here, and then expect to see another thread so more can participate… the first verse you highlighted was talking about the world in general. The world was fallen due to original sin.
God bless,
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Giver, just how does the Catholic Church NOT teach “the word of God?”
In a given three year period, with our daily Mass cycles, we go through the entire Bible. How much of the Bible is taught at a weekly Protestant service?
Not only that, we follow the word of God quite closely, especially in regards to John6, which was not taken “figuratively” for 1500 years. Not to be rude to individual Protestants (of whom my best friend is one), but the “word of God” taught that chapter LITERALLY for 1500 years, and the Catholic Church CONTINUES to teach it literally.
On the whole, with any group that has been around for a number of years, with fairly extensive records, either oral or written, if the group (let’s have it be a real estate business) has followed a particular practice or practices (let’s say, the group asks all members to wear blue vests) for a lengthy time, and then another group “dissents” from that group, teaches or follows a COMPLETELY different practice (let’s say, asks all members to carry tan attache cases, and to take off the blue vests) and claims that that DIFFERENT practice is what the founders of the group actually TAUGHT. . .well, using reason and evidence one would be able to realize that, even if that second group had very good “intentions” and honest doubts, that second group is in error in its claims that their DIFFERENT teaching is the ORIGINAL teaching. The second group insists that blue is not a corporate color anyway, that clothes have nothing to do with real estate, that their briefcases are far more practical, that the founders had had briefcases at first but the evidence was suppressed by evil vest wearers, etc… . .but that still doesn’t change the fact that the original teaching is the original teaching. Like it or not, the blue vests were the original teaching. That latter group must accept that first.
In a given three year period, with our daily Mass cycles, we go through the entire Bible. How much of the Bible is taught at a weekly Protestant service?
Not only that, we follow the word of God quite closely, especially in regards to John6, which was not taken “figuratively” for 1500 years. Not to be rude to individual Protestants (of whom my best friend is one), but the “word of God” taught that chapter LITERALLY for 1500 years, and the Catholic Church CONTINUES to teach it literally.
On the whole, with any group that has been around for a number of years, with fairly extensive records, either oral or written, if the group (let’s have it be a real estate business) has followed a particular practice or practices (let’s say, the group asks all members to wear blue vests) for a lengthy time, and then another group “dissents” from that group, teaches or follows a COMPLETELY different practice (let’s say, asks all members to carry tan attache cases, and to take off the blue vests) and claims that that DIFFERENT practice is what the founders of the group actually TAUGHT. . .well, using reason and evidence one would be able to realize that, even if that second group had very good “intentions” and honest doubts, that second group is in error in its claims that their DIFFERENT teaching is the ORIGINAL teaching. The second group insists that blue is not a corporate color anyway, that clothes have nothing to do with real estate, that their briefcases are far more practical, that the founders had had briefcases at first but the evidence was suppressed by evil vest wearers, etc… . .but that still doesn’t change the fact that the original teaching is the original teaching. Like it or not, the blue vests were the original teaching. That latter group must accept that first.
P
Pax
Guest
Robert,
I am not making excuses for the Church…I am simply stating the facts. I will give you another scripture verse that points out “exactly” what I am saying:
Paul says this in Acts 20:28-30
“Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers[bishops], to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; **and from among your own selves ** will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.”
Now, you can deny all of this but you will be denying the clear words of scripture. You will be denying the inspired word of God. Scripture is telling us that there will be sinful priests and bishops and that some will come in among us that will do and teach bad things. This does not deny the ministerial priesthood. Your quote from 1 John 3:5-6 does not negate this.
Please be advised that John also said:
“If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”[1 John1:8-9]
The apostle also says in 1 John 2:1, “MY LITTLE children, I am writing this to you so that you **may not ** sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;”
The verse you quoted about “not sinning” is not an absolute. This is not my own idea and it is not simply a Catholic idea either. I refer you to the following from *Morris Book Synopsis *, a Protestant Commentary:
** "John also emphasized that we CAN be certain of our salvation. As long as one continually “walks in the light (truth) as he (Jesus) is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth (i.e. continually) us from all sin” (1Jn 1:7). We must also continually admit our sinful condition (1Jn 1:9).
Can one who is “born of God” commit sin? Answer: certainly! However, it must NOT be habitual (1Jn 3:6, with the Greek present tense). If it is, then that sinner is in league with the Devil (1Jn 3:8)! The true Christian does not PRACTICE that kind of life (1Jn 3:9), though, at times, he or she may occasionally slip and fall."**
Please be advised that your understanding is unique to you and is not part of Christian teaching.
Please be advised that I never called you “a false prophet.”
Please be advised that you have never substantiated or proven from scripture that the Catholic Church has any false teachings. Every claim that you have made such as your interpretation of “call no man father,” “there is no ministerial priesthood,” and now your latest one that “no Christian ever sins” are completely false.
P
Pax
Guest
You are reading your thoughts into the scriptures. This is called “eisegesis” and is most improper. Peter is not saying that a Christian “never” sins. Please be advised that in 1 Peter Chapter one, the apostle is speaking to Christians. He is speaking to those “born anew”[1Peter 1:3] and is encouraging them to be holy and to avoid sin. In 1 Peter 2:1 the apostle says, “SO PUT away all malice and all guile and insincerity and envy and all slander.” Apparently, some of these sinful things were still prevalent and he is telling them to rid themselves of these sins. Peter goes on in verse 11 saying, " Beloved, I beseech you as aliens and exiles** to abstain from the passions of the flesh that wage war against your soul."** Peter continues to exhort his audience throughout the rest of the epistle to avoid sin. He never tells them that they will never sin. He would not even bother with all of the exhortations if he thought that Christians never sin.
You quoted 2 Peter and misunderstood that in this epistle Peter is doing the same thing as in his first letter. He is exhorting the Christians in his audience to resist sinfulness. In quoting from the epistle you also failed to read far enough to get the correction to your own argument full face. Please note the following:
2 Peter 2:15-22
“Forsaking the right way they have gone astray; they have followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved gain from wrongdoing, but was rebuked for his own transgression; a dumb *** spoke with human voice and restrained the prophet’s madness. These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm; for them the nether gloom of darkness has been reserved.
For, uttering loud boasts of folly, they entice with licentious passions of the flesh men who have barely escaped from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption; for whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved. For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb, The dog turns back to his own vomit, and the sow is washed only to wallow in the mire.”
Please note that Peter is referring Christians that have “returned” to the defilements of the world. They knew the way of righteousness and turned from it. Like the sow they had been “washed” only to wallow in the mire. They sinned.
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
Romans 4:
12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
13It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.
16Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.” He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.
18Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” 19Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old—and that Sarah’s womb was also dead. 20Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. 22This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.” 23The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, 24but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.
1 Corinthians 4:15
Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.
Cleary Paul does not understand Jesus words the way you do giver.
12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
13It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.
16Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.” He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.
18Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” 19Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old—and that Sarah’s womb was also dead. 20Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. 22This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.” 23The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, 24but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.
1 Corinthians 4:15
Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.
Cleary Paul does not understand Jesus words the way you do giver.
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
The Aramaic word for “Father,” “my Father,” which, together with the Greek equivalent, occurs three times in the New Testament. It is an invocation to God, expressive of a close personal or filial relation of the speaker to God. It is found in Mark, xiv. 36, the parallel passage, Matt. xxvi. 39, having only the Greek words “my Father.” Paul, in Rom. viii. 15 and Gal. iv. 6, shows that, in admitting proselytes to membership in the new faith, they were declared to be the children of God while addressing Him as “Abba, Father.” But there is nothing specially Christian about this. **It was the formula for addressing God most familiar to Jewish saints of the New Testament timesTa’anit, 23b)
**
…
jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=121&letter=A&search=Abba
I seriously doubt if any catholic views their priests as being God the Father.
G
Giver
Guest
Daniel Marsh:
Have you ever read anything where Paul or any of the Apostles were addressed as father? Were they called father by anyone? What is your problem, Jesus said not to call any man father, so why not just do as he told us? You can look and look for reasons not to obey Him, but why?
- Status