P
Pax
Guest
Are you serious? Please quote me and show me where I called you Judas?
- Status
P
Pax
Guest
Actually, your belief doesn’t make any sense. If we have a ministerial priesthood it is simply illogical for the non-ordained to have the power to confect the Eucharist. Moreover, it denies all the scriptural references given to you. Priests offer sacrifice. The mass is a sacrifice. The mass is and always has been offered by the ordained. The burden is on you to prove from history that this is not the case. You are simply making up that which you wish to do which is contrary to the way God set it up.
P
Pax
Guest
Robert,
You have on many occassions made some outrageous claims, but your statement concerning the OT is totally ridiculous if not blasphemous. The Old testament is the inspired word of God and your irreverant remark is totally uncalled for.
G
Giver
Guest
No! Calling another man farther isn’t very far up the list of teachings I find wrong with the Church. Calling a man father is just dangerous. I will give you a list of wrong teachings and practices that are more than just dangerous.
Jesus said: (Matthew 5:44) “But I say this to you: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you;”(Luke 6:27-28) “But I say this to you who are listening: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who treat you badly. To the man who slaps you on one cheek, present the other cheek too; to the man who takes your cloak from you, do not refuse your tunic.”
(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.”
(Luke 14:33) “So in the same way, none of you can be my disciple unless he gives up all his possessions.”
Usury: (Ezekiel 18:13) “_____ charges usury on loans and takes interest, then this son shall certainly not live; having committed all these appalling crimes he will have to die, and his blood be on his own head.” I am using an Old Testament Scripture, but one that Jesus completed. He told us to lend without any hope of return.
Giver
G
Giver
Guest
Come on Pax, do you really think I’m that stupid? First if they were ordaining priest that soon it sure would have been mentioned in Acts. Next their houses couldn’t have been very big, and there were at least five thousand Christians. How many priests do you think that would have taken? Also read (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
johnq
Guest
Twelve
B
bookgirl
Guest
Giver,
Why do you keep trying to twist words? Or maybe you’re just so desperate NOT to hear these convincing words from all of these posts? He’s talking about references to the ministerial priesthood in the Bible throughout the OT and the NT. And by references I mean it’s in there, he’s pointing to them. They’re there. He’s not necessarily trying to give you examples of where the Bible has specific references to the exact wording of the sacrament of ordination. Are you seriously reading that into it? Or are you trying to divert attention from the fact that you don’t really have a good objection to what he really meant?
By the way, you haven’t answered my question over on the “To be deeper in to the Bible” thread.
G
Giver
Guest
Twelve, and they got to all those homes and they didn’t even have cars. They must have been in real good shape.Twelve
M
mercygate
Guest
Giver, I thought you said you had been Catholic? Maybe you were of the generation that got the short end of the catechetical stick. The “line” is at officially promulgated doctrine, either via ecumenical councils or ex cathedra.
Yes. All baptized Christians are in the Church but not all are equipped either by charism or office to define doctrine.
“Bad decisions” being what? Things you don’t understand?
The Spirit that is given to the “hierarchy” is the charism of Matthew 28:18-20:
And Jesus came and said to them [only the eleven were present], “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”
The particular charism to make disciples and to teach is given to the eleven. We share in that charism when we are united to the Apostolic teaching. When the “spirit” tells me something that contradicts the teaching of the eleven, then that spirit ain’t the Holy Spirit.
In the Catholic Church, even when private locutions or visions have been deemed to be authentic, no Catholic is obliged to accept them. For example, many are edified and have derived great spiritual benefit from the locutions received by Margaret Mary Alacoque (Sacred Heart) and by Faustina Kowalska (Divine Mercy) but nobody is required to accept them de fide.
Giver, does your congregation accept the personal communications Jesus gives you without question? Does no one test the spirit? Do you? The Catholic Church tests the spirit by asking whether something is consistent with Scripture and the tradition received from the Apostles, and by measuring the fruit.
J
jebojora
Guest
Interesting thread.
I was a Protestant for many years and now a Catholic for almost 11 years.
My daughter is dating a Protestant and this very subject has been brought up several times.
Our Priest has said the title is becasue in their vows they promise to guide us as their children. They are our earthly spiritual fathers. You can call your biological father “father” then you can certainly call your spiritual father “father.” I think of it as more of an affectionate title myself…and it acknowledges their position in the Church family. Just as in a regular family, parents have a higher place of authority.
Giver may have been brought up Catholic, but the aruguments are definitely Protestant. The letter killith and the spirit giveth life! There are 26,000 different Protestant religions because of this type of personal interpretation of the Bible.
It is dangerous to set yourself up to follow the Bible literally in every instance. It will drive you nuts. You cannot take scripture out of context and then try to force your interpretation of that passage on others. That’s why Jesus setup the Church in the first place. We need an authority. Just as one cannot personally interpret laws of the State…if we could everyone could pretty much do as they please and just claim a different interpretation.
The danger is not in calling a Priest father, the danger is in trying to apply personal interpretation to God’s Church.
I was a Protestant for many years and now a Catholic for almost 11 years.
My daughter is dating a Protestant and this very subject has been brought up several times.
Our Priest has said the title is becasue in their vows they promise to guide us as their children. They are our earthly spiritual fathers. You can call your biological father “father” then you can certainly call your spiritual father “father.” I think of it as more of an affectionate title myself…and it acknowledges their position in the Church family. Just as in a regular family, parents have a higher place of authority.
Giver may have been brought up Catholic, but the aruguments are definitely Protestant. The letter killith and the spirit giveth life! There are 26,000 different Protestant religions because of this type of personal interpretation of the Bible.
It is dangerous to set yourself up to follow the Bible literally in every instance. It will drive you nuts. You cannot take scripture out of context and then try to force your interpretation of that passage on others. That’s why Jesus setup the Church in the first place. We need an authority. Just as one cannot personally interpret laws of the State…if we could everyone could pretty much do as they please and just claim a different interpretation.
The danger is not in calling a Priest father, the danger is in trying to apply personal interpretation to God’s Church.
W
Will_Pick
Guest
T
TobyLue
Guest
Giver said:
That is definitely not true. This forum does not allow for posting on unapproved private revelations like those that make the weekly tabloids. Please tell everybody here why (without having to go into much detail) you believe what you believe. Since you claim that neither the Catholic Church nor any of the Protestants churches are living the Word of God, tell us who you learned from and who taught you and told you that the CC was wrong in its interpretation of the word “father”. This thread is going nowhere since you have been given time and again proof after proof and what the Church has taught for 2000 years. You keep throwing bible verses around without anything to back up your beliefs. You claim you were once Catholic, yet you also claim you are NOT protestant, but you are “Christian”. Since you do neither worship in the Church that Jesus founded, nor any of the breakaway protestant Church, which is it? I think everybody here would be interested to know where your beliefs are coming from. Many here claim they are Calvanists, or Albigensians, others that they got their teachings from John Smith, others from Pastor Charles Taze Russell or John Rutherford, Ellen White, etc., etc. Ours are coming from the Church that Jesus founded. I know where yours are coming from but I think the others would like to know too.
I think its high time you reveal you sources as to where you are getting all your interpretations. That would clear up many of the problems.
G
Giver
Guest
OK! Let me start out with (Matthew 28:16-20) “Meanwhile the eleven disciples set out for Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had arranged to meet them. When they saw him they fell down before him, though some hesitated. Jesus came up and spoke to them. He said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, make disciples of all the nations; baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teach them to observe all the commands I gave you. And know that I am with you always; yes, to the end of time.”
Jesus told them to baptize and to teach them to observe all the commands He gave them.
You make an assumption that the church hierarchy of today is the successor of the apostles. That is a big assumption, because the history of the church is real murky.
The apostles were told to teach and observe all the commands and there were many years in the churches history where the so-called successors of the apostles sure were not observing the commands of the apostles. Not only were they not observing the commands they were not teaching them.
Jesus said: (Matthew 5:44) “But I say this to you: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you;”(Luke 6:27-28) “But I say this to you who are listening: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who treat you badly. To the man who slaps you on one cheek, present the other cheek too; to the man who takes your cloak from you, do not refuse your tunic.”
As far as understanding what the Catholic Church is teaching, everyone has the Holy Spirit with him or her to give them understanding of the truth.
Giver
B
bookgirl
Guest
I’m confused by this statement. Are you saying that you believe this and the Catholic Church doesn’t? Or that the Church does and you think it’s wrong? If you believe it, and there are opposing interpretations from people who claim that the Holy Spirit gave them that interpretation when asked, who do you know who is right and who is wrong? (That’s the question I asked you on the other thread that you side-stepped by the way
.)
J
josephdavid
Guest
John 21:15-17:
15So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?” He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You " He said to him, **“Tend My lambs.” **
16He said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “**Shepherd My sheep.” **
17He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You " Jesus said to him, "Tend My sheep
15So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?” He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You " He said to him, **“Tend My lambs.” **
16He said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “**Shepherd My sheep.” **
17He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You " Jesus said to him, "Tend My sheep
P
Pax
Guest
Now please don’t tell me that everything concerning ordination and the priesthood depends upon what is written in the book of Acts and that nothing else in scripture matters. If this is what you think than you need a lot of remedial scripture study. The book of Acts was not written for the purpose of outlining the ministerial priesthood but it certainly contains elements associated with it, and I will give more on that later. In the mean time I will refer you to a Protestant commentary, namely Morris Book Synopsis, which gives a summary of the purpose of the Book. It says:
**"AN INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK OF ACTS
The Book of Acts is the second volume of a two-volume set written by Luke, the physician. The “former treatise” of Ac.1v1 refers to the Gospel of Luke. Both books were written to Theophilus (Lk.1v3; Ac.1v1). Acts of the Apostles tells how the early followers of Jesus, led by the Holy Spirit, did spread the Good News far beyond the confines of Jewish life to the whole world. Jesus said: “And ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth” (Ac.1v8). This is the three-part outline for the Book of Acts.
Acts reveals the sometimes painful implications of the gospel to the Gentiles. The Lord had never intended for the message of Jesus to remain “bottled up” in one little culture. New wine requires new winebags which can stretch (Lk.5v36-39). Everything before Acts was focused upon God’s untiring love for Israel, His chosen people. But, from Acts onward, the second part of God’s promise to Abraham (Gen.12v1-3), “in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed,” is being fulfilled."**
Please notice that the Book of Acts is not a handbook concerning the ministerial priesthood nor is its purpose designed to outline the ministerial priesthood. Your demands for the kinds of definitive statements you require are totally unreasonable and do not make sense.
Let’s turn your silly demands around and simply require that you “prove” from the Book of Acts and the rest of the NT that there is no New Covenant ministerial priesthood. This requires that you show from scripture that such a priesthood is emphatically denied. This simply is not the case. Instead the NT clearly speaks of the laying on of hands(ordination) and the ministerial priestly hierarchy of deacons, presbyters/priests, and bishops. Are you denying that there exist deacons, presbyters, and bishops within the early Christian Church? If so then you deny the very words of scripture. If you deny that there is a difference between this ministerial priesthood and the declaration that we are a priestly people then you deny the words of scripture and you are usurping the ministerial priesthood as was done in Korah’s rebellion. It really is that simple.
P
Pax
Guest
Hopefully the following from the book of Acts will show you that your study of scripture is grossly incomplete and that your personal study is guided by your personal biases. In Acts 6:1-7 it says: “NOW IN these days when the disciples were increasing in number, the Hellenists murmured against the Hebrews because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution. And the twelve summoned the body of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brethren, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” And what they said pleased the whole multitude, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands upon them. And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.”
This passage describes the laying on of hands of the first deacons. The deaconate is one of the steps in the priestly hierarchy. And please notice the last verse that mentions “priests.” Apparently, priests were still recognized.
In Acts 9:13-18 we read about the followup to Paul’s miraculous experience on the road to Damascus. The passages say, " . But Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to thy saints at Jerusalem; and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call upon thy name.” But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; for I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.” So Ananias departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came, has sent me that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized,"
Please notice that Paul’s commission is not complete until Annanias is sent to lay his hands on Paul. This is Paul’s ordination/annointing to the priesthood.
Once again in Acts 13:1-3 we read the following:
“NOW IN the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Mana-en a member of the court of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “**Set apart for me ** Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off.”
Please notice that these disciples in the church at Antioch were “set apart for me[the Holy Spirit]”, there was “the laying on of hands”, and they were “sent.” This is the essence of ordination and it was going on over and over again in the Book of Acts and elsewhere in the NT scriptures.
I could go on with this, but by now you should get the point.
P
Pax
Guest
In the Book of Acts and elsewhere we frequently find the use of the word “elders.” This word means priests and comes from the Greek word presbuteroi. This Greek word is where we get the English term “priest.”
In the book of Acts we read the following:
Acts 11:29-30
And the disciples determined, every one according to his ability, to send relief to the brethren who lived in Judea; and they did so, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul.
Acts 14:23
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.
Acts 15:2
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 15:4-6
When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up, and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses.” The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.
Acts 20:17
And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the** elders** of the church.
Acts 21:18
On the following day Paul went in with us to James; and all the elders were present.
As you can see the elders/priests are mentioned many times in the Book of Acts and they are distinguished from the apostles. It is clear that there were many ordained priests. The ministerial priesthood is indeed clearly discussed in the Book of Acts not to mention the many verses pointing to the ministerial priesthood elsewhere in the NT.
In the book of Acts we read the following:
Acts 11:29-30
And the disciples determined, every one according to his ability, to send relief to the brethren who lived in Judea; and they did so, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul.
Acts 14:23
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.
Acts 15:2
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 15:4-6
When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up, and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses.” The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.
Acts 20:17
And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the** elders** of the church.
Acts 21:18
On the following day Paul went in with us to James; and all the elders were present.
As you can see the elders/priests are mentioned many times in the Book of Acts and they are distinguished from the apostles. It is clear that there were many ordained priests. The ministerial priesthood is indeed clearly discussed in the Book of Acts not to mention the many verses pointing to the ministerial priesthood elsewhere in the NT.
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
Indeed. A better translation of elder would be presbyter – or simply priest. We also get the words presiding, president, etc. from priest.
P
Pax
Guest
This is a patently false statement without foundation of proof. The NT speaks of deacons, priests, and bishops. This is the hierarchy of the Church. For proof simply look at some historical data using the Church at Antioch. St. Ignatius of Antioch succeeded Evodius as the Bishop of Antioch. Ignatius wrote seven letters on his way to Rome to be martyred. He died in Rome at about age 50 somewhere between 98 and 117 AD. In his 7 letters, which are all considered to be authentic, he refers to himself and others as bishops. He also speaks of the deacons, priests, and bishops in the way that the Catholic Church does. St. Ignatius and the bishop Polycarp were ordained by the apostle John. This is all readily available historical data. This is but one example of the abundance of data that is available if you would simply do some research.
Murky history?..I don’t think so.
- Status