What is the standard against which you measure your understanding of Scripture?

[Pax]

michaelp:

But the scriptures used to support it have to have your doctrines read into it. You have to have the Magisterium tell you that this is how to interpret these Scripture before you would ever come to this conclusion on your own. This would be question begging. Honesty, can you read Matt 16 and John 21 as and get the Petrine succession out of it? Really? Read it as if you are reading it for the first time. Try to do this. If you say yes, I don’t think you are being honest. If you say “no, but the Church tells me that is what it means and I believe it” that is begging the question. (I know you are all getting sick of me using this "begging the question stuff-- but it is true.) What am I missing?..

Michael,

Has it occurred to you that we are not simply reading our doctrines into the various passages that support the primacy of the bishop of Rome? Has it occurred to you that the passages of scripture that we use do indeed coincide perfectly with the message of Jesus in the establishment of His Church and the promises that He made? Has it occurred to you that you are reading into these passages your own personal bias that what we say cannot be true?

The arguments you pose can be more easily applied to your position than to ours. We have the data of scripture manifested in the historical truth that the church always had a hierarchical structure. Even Paul speaks of the qualifications of a bishop. Read Ignatius of Antioch and the other ECF’s and find out what they have to say about bishops. You are arguing against authority within the church. The data of scripture and of history are against you. Even the OT Jews had historical spiritual leaders that exercised spiritual authority. The NT authority exists within the body of Christ as outlined by Jesus and reiterated by the apostles. We are not begging the question. I believe that you are hung up on demanding some kind of scriptural proof that apparently cannot be satisfied within the parameters that you have established.

Moreover, if you reject the Catholic position you must also provide an alternative supported by scripture to show how the promises of Christ were to be kept. You have not done this.

Your understandings of sufficient unity do not match or begin to approximate the kind of unity prayed for by Jesus or the kind of unity found in Christianity during its first 1100 years. I also disagree with any description of unity as acceptable that points to “agreeing on the essentials.” The first thing that will happen with this approach is an argument over what comprises the essentials. The early Fundamentalists took this very approach and settled among themselves what they thought were the essentials. But look what they abandoned and did not include. This kind of thing is just plain scary. Jesus tells Satan in Matthew 4:4 "“It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, **but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’” ** I would suggest we all be quite circumspect over this kind of thinking and approach.

 

[michaelp]

Pax:

Michael,

Has it occurred to you that we are not simply reading our doctrines into the various passages that support the primacy of the bishop of Rome? Has it occurred to you that the passages of scripture that we use do indeed coincide perfectly with the message of Jesus in the establishment of His Church and the promises that He made? Has it occurred to you that you are reading into these passages your own personal bias that what we say cannot be true?

Actually, no. You must understand, I don’t mind if God set things up this was . . . Really. I am not preset against it. I am not tied to any traditional interpretation of them. I just don’t think exegesis is that hard in these cases. Plus, Church history is NOT united with your interpretation of these verses. Read the Ancient Christian Commentary on John and Matt. Even Raymond Brown disagrees with your interpretation of John 21, because he knows that the original audience would have never gotten this theology from the text, but it must be read into the text. Other Catholic Scholars say that it must be read into the text, but they claim that the Magisterium has the right to do so since it can see things that other people were not meant to see. Frankly, that is crazy to me. With this method, of course they could prove that these verses claim Petrine authority simply by saying they do, totally disregarding the original context, audience, and authorial intent.

This one should probebly be laid to rest here, since I am becoming much more distrustful of the RC system which seems to abuse the text to fit their own agenda. Remember, I am open minded, but this is counter convincing.

The arguments you pose can be more easily applied to your position than to ours.

But they cannot (at least to me). The basic interpretive principle of literature must apply–even to Scripture. Scripture was written in the common language, by common people, to common people, using common genres (type of literature), about common situation. Therefore, common rules of hermeutics apply.

 

[michaelp]

We have the data of scripture manifested in the historical truth that the church always had a hierarchical structure. Even Paul speaks of the qualifications of a bishop. Read Ignatius of Antioch and the other ECF’s and find out what they have to say about bishops.

We ordain ministers as well. This does not mean that we pass on infallibility to them. We follow in the same traditions, we just don’t pass on the authority that you do. I find no place where either Peter or Paul passed on their apostleship, much less infallibility.

You are arguing against authority within the church.The data of scripture and of history are against you.

Question begging. This has not been established.

Even the OT Jews had historical spiritual leaders that exercised spiritual authority.

Yes, but if you are talkng about their prophets, they showed the signs of a prophet. In other words, they showed the signs of someone speaking for God. Something the RC system somehow bypassed and does not require. Even Christ and the apostle had to give attesting signs to their authority. Their miracles were not simply acts of benevolence, as some think, but attesting signs to point to the authority of their message. Otherwise, anyone could claim to speak for God. Anyone.

The NT authority exists within the body of Christ as outlined by Jesus and reiterated by the apostles. We are not begging the question. I believe that you are hung up on demanding some kind of scriptural proof that apparently cannot be satisfied within the parameters that you have established.

But these are the parameters that God set up to protect His word. (Deut 13, 18 and 2 Cor 12:12). All of Gospels and the Book of Acts shows how Christ and the Apostles did many signs to substantiate the parameters that God established. Is this really that unreasonable?

Moreover, if you reject the Catholic position you must also provide an alternative supported by scripture to show how the promises of Christ were to be kept. You have not done this.

What promises? That the church should be one and united? They are one and united. We are one by the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. But this creedal oneness has NEVER been realized. It will be in glory and we ought to strive for it here, but even immediately after the Church began, there was disunity. Look at the Corinthians. Look at the Churches in the first few Chapters of Rev. Look at the early church. Look at the church of the middle ages. Look at the Church at the Reformation. Look at the church now. No one from the outside looking in would ever say that we have had this creedal unity that you believe must be. We are united truly, but not completely. I long for us all to have more of a creedal unity, but even if we don’t attain to that in this life, we do have an ontological unity.

I also disagree with any description of unity as acceptable that points to “agreeing on the essentials.” The first thing that will happen with this approach is an argument over what comprises the essentials.

The Bible lays these out pretty clearly to me. But, in essence, we are untied by our trust in what Christ did for us on the cross. If you are trusting in Christ, you are one with the Church. Many things follow as the Holy Spirit convicts people. Look at all that Protestants and RCs do agree upon. Many great essentials. Unity and diversity.

The early Fundamentalists took this very approach and settled among themselves what they thought were the essentials. But look what they abandoned and did not include.

But this was in the context of a fight against liberalism and was dictated by what the liberals denied.

Please, don’t get me wrong. I am not defending Protestantism here necessarily. I do find much I agree with the Reformers, but I do not defend their system either. I just don’t think that there is ONE right system prescribed.

Lively as usual, have a good one,

Michael

 

[Pax]

Michael,

You and I can argue the exegesis of certain passages all day long and not come to an agreement. You and I could be extremely well educated in scripture and well trained in studying scripture. We could even be considered experts with outstanding credentials. Our writings and critical thinking could be lauded far and wide. In the areas of exegesis and hermenuetics we might even have many accolades associated with our names and our writings. In the final analysis, however, we might still disagree on a great many things.

Assuming that we had the aforementioned talents and we were considered highly reputable scholars, we would no doubt have many people lining up behind us that accepted and supported our positions. Neither the number of supporters nor the particular articulation of our arguments would demonstrate that either of us had hit upon the truth. We could both have a piece of the truth, or one of us could be more correct than the other, or only one of us might possess the truth. It could be that neither of us possessed the truth.

From our point of view, you fail to connect all of the scriptural dots from the various passages that point to the authority of the Church and the promises made by Jesus. If I understand your view correctly, you disagree with the exegetical particulars of certain passages and the connections we make to our understandings of the Church’s authority related to doctrinal matters of faith and morals.

We do not isolate the verses we quote. We believe them to be interwoven and related in such a way that the picture we are given by God is unmistakeable. We could discount a great many things accepted by all Christians if we used the exegetical methods and standards that you apply. I do not disagree with careful and critical exegesis. I try to do this to the best of my limited ability. But at the same time, I believe it necessary to look at the entirety of scripture for context.

There are a great many scriptural connections that most people never see in scripture. You, for example, do not connect Isaiah 22:19-22 and the position of “prime minister” in the Davidic kingdom to the verses in Matthew 16:18 where Jesus gives the keys to the kingdom to Peter. Most Protestant scripture scholars have never studied this connection because they are unaware of it. Those that do study it, do see the connection. They may not wish to accept the full implications of the connection but they recognize what’s going on.

So where is the truth to be found when there are opposing points of view or different understandings and interpretations especially when it comes to important matters of faith and morals? We believe that scripture, tradition, and the Church have answered this question in spades. If you reject this then you must be able to proffer a legitimate alternative that meets your scriptural, historical, and logical requirements. If you cannot do this then you have to admit that the promises of Christ have not and cannot be kept. If you believe that the promises of Christ have been kept, but not in the fashion and by the mechanisms we believe in, then you are forced to accept and tolerate the existence of conflicting doctrines within Christianity. Once you have done this then many important things are up for grabs, and you run into problems reconciling this tolerance with the words of Jesus, Peter, Paul, James, John and the other NT authors.

No person or “system” has offered or provided the protections against heresy as has the Catholic Church. If you can offer or provide a plan other than the one we believe to be outlined in scripture and believe to be the fulfilled in the Catholic Church, then I and the rest of the Christian world would love to hear and see it in action. Such an alternative has never been offered. Faith alone and scripture alone has been the Protestant alternative and it has failed every scriptural and practical test. What is your solution? If you do not have a solution then you must make a choice. This choice may involve a tremendous leap of faith, but it is the logical choice. Faith does not demand that every question be answered to your satisfaction. It just may be that faith, by definition, rejects the scriptural, historical, and logical standards that you have set. You may be asking for a level of certainty that eliminates the need for faith.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Judas was replaced in the scriptures, that is certainly a move that would not support the idea that authority had been thrown away.Just my simple thought on the matter While, posing that statement I will leave those gifted in debating skills to answer

 

[Pax]

michaelp:

I just don’t think that there is ONE right system prescribed.

Lively as usual, have a good one,

Michael

Michael,

If your belief were true then we are all in deep trouble. The words of Christ and the good news of the gospel will be up for grabs. The good news would simply deteriorate into little more than lip service to what most would simply consider to be a pious but anachronistic superstition.

The above may sound extreme but the number of fallen away and nominal Christians would suggest otherwise. I’ll try to address some of your points about ordination and other issues with some detail later. Unfortunately, I have got some pressing matters that I must take care of. Have a good day.

 

[dennisknapp]

Michael,

“Each of us walk through the garden of Chruch history and pick the flowers that we like the best.”–John Hannah"

This was not the case until 400 years ago. How can you pick the flowers if they do not exist? Is John Hannah picking seeds that will be interpreted as flowers at a later date?

What do you think the early Christians’ believed? Let’s leave out of the discussion our own interpretations of Scripture and stick to what was believed after 100 to say 1500. Also, let’s keep in mind that doctrines do develope and mature over time. So, what did these people believe and how does it compare to what you currently adher to?

The reason I ask for this is because it is a huge assumption to say that what Evangelicals currently hold to be true and bibilcal, is true and biblical, in light of what we know of historical Christianity.

Show me that essentially Protestantism is not an innovation. For I see no historical evidence to convince me otherwise.

 

[michaelp]

dennisknapp:

Michael,

“Each of us walk through the garden of Chruch history and pick the flowers that we like the best.”–John Hannah"

This was not the case until 400 years ago. How can you pick the flowers if they do not exist? Is John Hannah picking seeds that will be interpreted as flowers at a later date?

What do you think the early Christians’ believed? Let’s leave out of the discussion our own interpretations of Scripture and stick to what was believed after 100 to say 1500. Also, let’s keep in mind that doctrines do develope and mature over time. So, what did these people believe and how does it compare to what you currently adher to?

The reason I ask for this is because it is a huge assumption to say that what Evangelicals currently hold to be true and bibilcal, is true and biblical, in light of what we know of historical Christianity.

Show me that essentially Protestantism is not an innovation. For I see no historical evidence to convince me otherwise.

Goodness, where do I begin:

The earliest agreements (100-300):

1. Early Christian’s believed and refered to the Scriptures as authority.
2. The early Christians believed that people must trust and believe in Christ.
3. The early Christians believed that living a Christian life was an essential part of what it means to be Christian that separated them from a Pagan society.
4. The early Christians believed in the communion of the saints.
5. The early Christians believed in the Apostle’s Creed.
6. The early Christians believed the Christ was the Messiah (although it took time for them to fully realize what that meant).
7. The early Christians believed in the Holy Spirit.
8. The early Christians believed that one must submit to local bishops (although, this does not imply absolute authority, just authority)
9. The early Christians were primarily concerned with pastoral care among their flock (i.e. Ignatius and Clement), and did not have the oppertunity to develop much in doctrinal areas.
10. The early Christians believed that Christ died and rose again.
11. The early Christians believed that Christ was coming again (most were premillenial).
12. The early Christians believed in the grace of God.
13. The early Christians believed that God is revealed in the truth of most philosophies (except for some people’s interpretation of Turtullian.
14. Early Christian’s believe in an educational institution the Catechemenate.
15. The early Christians believed in water baptism as an initiation rite of passage that involved three stages (protecting against mere professors, and those who had been converts from other religions and did not understand Christianity).
16. That Christ was a man and divine.

What the earliest Christians believed that both Catholics and Protestants don’t:

1. That Christ was ontologically subordinate to the Father (although I believe that this was done out of ignorance since the early Church had not dealt with this issue yet. Martyr and Origen.
2. That man will is totally free and able to choose God without aid.
3. Premillennialism (although some Protestants do believe this).
4. That the atonement was a price paid to Satan, not God (understandable since they did not have time to deal with these doctrinal issues and they were heavely influenced by Greek dualism).

What the earliest Christians did not have any conception of (even in seed form) that either Protestants or Catholics believe today:

1. Marian theology (assumption, co-redemtrix)
2. Prayers to the saints
3. Rapture
4. Seven distinct Sacraments
5. Definition of the sacraments as drawing form a deposit of Grace purchased by Christ.

Debatable Points that are hard to determine exactly what they believed:

1. Theology of Baptism (i.e. the affects of baptism)
2. Theology of the eucharist (i.e. the affects of the eucharist)
3. That Scripture is the ultimate authority.
4. That there was two deposits of faith, both equal.

Certianly, all would agree, none of these existed *in the current articulations in which they exist today no matter what tradition you are from. *This does not make them wrong. It was understandable since they were more concerned with pastoral guidence and doctrines are only articulated in the midst of controversy.

These are all off the top of my head and I know that there are many more.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Sorry I had to break this down to 100-300. What you are asking me to do (100-1550) would comprise a whole volume on the history of doctrine. If you really want to see this developed from a Protestant perspecive see Berkof History of Doctrine or John Hannah Our Legacy.

But what I would suggest most is A Mosaic of Christian Belief by Roger Olsen. The first chapter of this book, which is worth the price of the book, is availible online here: amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0830826955/qid=1102970564/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-0813233-8169666?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Just read the first page, it is addicting. I really admire his honest and, most of all, his methodology.

Hannah is really good to. It is very irenic in tone.

Michael

 

[Philthy]

michaelp:

In YOUR mind??? Who is to say that you are right in you SUBJECTIVE mind???


OK, so from this, you don’t even need Scripture, right? Seriously, what is the need if you may have it wrong. Maybe alot of it has been compiled from wrong manuscripts and then translated wrongly. You do not need Scripture then.

Michael

Michael -

I hate to inform you, but you don’t even have Scripture. All you have is nobody’s word regarding an old and often boring book. And I would agree that it is not needed. What exactly do you need Scripture for? Certainly not “to confess and believe”. Certainly wasn’t needed for at least 400 years of Christianity.
In addition, you appear to miss Nancy’s point: The Church didn’t need the Bible to proclaim the Word, administer the Sacraments and “make disciples” for HUNDREDS of years. Why would they ALL OF A SUDDEN need Scripture? Scripture is “useful” but not necessary in the strictest sense.

I have a feeling I may be out on a limb here…

Phil

 

[Sarah_Jane]

michaelp:

If you really want to see this developed from a Protestant perspecive see Berkof History of Doctrine or John Hannah Our Legacy.

But what I would suggest most is A Mosaic of Christian Belief by Roger Olsen. The first chapter of this book, which is worth the price of the book, is availible online here: amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0830826955/qid=1102970564/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-0813233-8169666?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

You can read *An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine *by John Henry Cardinal Newman.

amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/026800921X/qid=1102972292/sr=8-2/ref=pd_csp_2/002-8431321-9455217?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

 

[michaelp]

Philthy:
Michael -

I hate to inform you, but you don’t even have Scripture. All you have is nobody’s word regarding an old and often boring book. And I would agree that it is not needed. What exactly do you need Scripture for? Certainly not “to confess and believe”. Certainly wasn’t needed for at least 400 years of Christianity.

In addition, you appear to miss Nancy’s point: The Church didn’t need the Bible to proclaim the Word, administer the Sacraments and “make disciples” for HUNDREDS of years. Why would they ALL OF A SUDDEN need Scripture? Scripture is “useful” but not necessary in the strictest sense.

I have a feeling I may be out on a limb here…

Phil

That is a MAJOR overstatement that the Church did not have Scripture for the first 400 years. Mist all the Church had the Gospels, Acts, and most of the Pauline epistles.

Why was Scripture written? Why did they need Scripture? To preserve the traditions, since written words are much more reliable than spoken. Just look at how the traditions were already corrupted by the time of John in A.D. 90.

You all fail to understand that Scripture did not come into existence when some person or council pronounced that “These are Scripture.” It was simply coming into recognition through the local communities. There was not THAT MUCH debate about what belonged. Like I said, the Gospels, Acts, and the Pauline epistles were recognized very early. Gosh, the Church at Rome had Romans by 65 A.D. A pretty extensive soteriological work. The closest thing that we have to a doctrinal theology in the New Testament.

John 21:21 So Peter seeing him said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?” 22 Jesus said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!” 23 Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?”

I am glad that we have this Scripture to clear up the corruption of tradition recorded by John that went out among the brethren.

All and all, the biggest problem that I see with your argument is that you have act as if the Church was in disarray in the first centuries wondering what books were authoritative. This is a great overstatement. The majority of Scripture was recognized and in circulation in the first century.

Michael

 

[Philthy]

michaelp:

Lisa, you know me well enough by now. I don’t think that anyone can appeal to feelings, no matter how deep they are.

What makes you think that I don’t ask God for truth–everyday? I tell Him to give me a complete overhaul if need be, and I am VERY serious about this. Please do not assume upon what I pray for. Just take my word for it, I have prayed this prayer for over ten years now. Just because I don’t see things the way you do does not mean that I don’t pray with sincerity and you should not assume that it does.

I did go to the Coming Home Network. I did not find anything more than I have gotten here.

You must understand, Lisa and others, I really have no need to stay in the Protestant Church. Think of me as someone outside identification with any tradition looking in saying how do you know your right and the others are wrong. At that point, you just are one of many interpretations of history and Scripture. Who is to say you are right? Feelings? Sorry, I can’t go there.

It comes down to looking at all the information and then making a decision based upon the persuasiveness of the arguements. That is what I am held responsible for. I find more things persuasive with some Protestants at this point. That is why I am here, to learn more from you all.

Michael

I believe you. :yup:

Phil

 

[Philthy]

michaelp:

I guess Raymond Brown is under the same illusion, since he agrees that this verse does not teach Petrine succession.

Just because someone comes to different conclusions than you Phil, it does not mean that they are having illusions. V2 uses this verse to support Petrine succession and I see no exegetical warrent for it.

But, again, respectfully agree to disagree since we have already been through this?

Michael

Michael-

You are much more learned than I. However, the concept that “the Church” is derived from Scripture is an illusion since we know that the Church preceded Scripture. This is simply a fact. It doesn’t mean Scripture won’t have useful and important things to say regarding the Church, its just that this concept of being able to “derive” the Church from Scripture is not Scriptural nor is it logical. If I am wrong please show me how. And I did read all the posts and I understand your quandry regarding using your intellect responsibly with the best available information and that your OK with fallible information since the infallible is not available to you.

Your comment above that " V2 uses this verse to support Petrine succession" is a little slippery. Deriving Petrine succession (this is what you keep trying to do) from Scripture and supporting it( which is what V2 did)** from Scripture **are slightly different concepts, no? I know this doesn’t resolve your issue of authority but I feel compelled to clear up this concept regarding “deriving” the Church from Scripture.

I have no problem agreeing to disagree. I readily admit that I don’t have all the answers and might not even recognize them if you presented them to me! I apologize if any of my linguistic approaches have been perceived as inappropriate.

Phil

 

[Philthy]

michaelp:

It is hard to interpret isn’t it. Who can help? I wish that we had another higher authority to interpret the Magisterium. Or, I guess, that you have to come to your own conclusions about your “understanding”/interpretation of it, right? Hey, that is what I do with the interpretation of the Bible and get reemed for it. Oh, well . . . such is life. This is also the subject of another thread. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=23890&highlight=michaelp

Michael

Actually its a moot point for me - and I have not studied it at all. The posts that Nancy gave regarding it were very clear in my mind. Again, I don’t consider it a “major, day to day altering” statement. I understand that you would feel differently because you believe it to possibly be excluding you? I don’t think so, but again, I have not studied it. That being said, I don’t think it carries the weight of several issues that the Sola Scriptura Protestant Churches can’t unify on. Baptism, Homosexuality, Artificial Birth Control, Loss of Salvation…y’know - big stuff.

Anyhow I am probably a little more understanding than you think - in addition to Mass I attend an Efree church and play on the worship team and attend a bible study through it. I certainly don’t judge myself above anyone in that Church though I obviously disagree with some of the Fundamentals. I still consider them, and you, my brothers (and sisters) in Christ.

Phil

 

[PaulDupre]

michaelp:

I guess Raymond Brown is under the same illusion, since he agrees that this verse does not teach Petrine succession.

Just because someone comes to different conclusions than you Phil, it does not mean that they are having illusions. V2 uses this verse to support Petrine succession and I see no exegetical warrent for it.

But, again, respectfully agree to disagree since we have already been through this?

Michael

Hi Michael,
You should be aware that Raymond Brown (God rest his soul), while admired for his intellectual prowess, is not considered an orthodox Catholic theologian and does not represent the views of the magisterium. He hit doctrinal meltdown about 20 years ago.

Michael, you remind me of myself about 7 years ago. You are going to make one hell of a Catholic! Keep going!
Jesus’ grace to you,
Paul

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

PaulDupre:

Hi Michael,
You should be aware that Raymond Brown (God rest his soul), while admired for his intellectual prowess, is not considered an orthodox Catholic theologian and does not represent the views of the magisterium. He hit doctrinal meltdown about 20 years ago.

Michael, you remind me of myself about 7 years ago. You are going to make one hell of a Catholic! Keep going!
Jesus’ grace to you,
Paul

Dito, I agree Paul. Your guardian Angel is tugging at you when you read his post, Me too. He’s awsome! God Bless

 

[Pax]

michaelp:

We ordain ministers as well. This does not mean that we pass on infallibility to them. We follow in the same traditions, we just don’t pass on the authority that you do. I find no place where either Peter or Paul passed on their apostleship, much less infallibility.Michael

I would suggest that your understanding and estimation of equivalency in ordination within Protestant denominations vis-a-vis Catholic ordination is mistaken. Please refer to the following:

Acts 6:5-8
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. And Stephen, full of grace and power, did great wonders and signs among the people.

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.”

1 Timothy 5:22
Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor participate in another man’s sins; keep yourself pure.

2 Timothy 1:6
Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands;

Now take note. The power of ordination was in the hands of the apostles and the recipient receives power through the Holy Spirit. Certain individuals will also be given the authority to pass this on to others (eg. Timothy). Notice that not everyone is given the power received through the laying on of hands (eg. Simon).

Ordination in the Catholic Church is through an unbroken succession of those who have the power to lay on hands and are able to grant that same power to others. That is why scripture speaks of presbyters (priests) and bishops. Non-Catholic Churches do not participate in the unbroken chain of the laying on of hands. They do not participate in the same kind of ordination that a Catholic priest or bishop participates in.

Now, ordination has been in place since immediately after Pentecost. The liturgical rites may have changed but the sacrament of Holy Orders has always been in place.

The same is true of marriage as seen in the statements of Jesus and in the letters of Paul.

Baptism is seen in the gospels, the book of Acts, the writings of Paul, and in 1 Peter 3:21. Read the Didache, a first century writing, which contains statements on baptism. Baptism has always been understood as Catholics teach it today. I challenge you to produce reliable documentation that shows that it developed over the 100 to 300 years. This sacrament has been in place from the get go.

I’ll get into confession and the other sacraments in my next post. I have to stop here because I’m literally heading over to my church for a penance service and confession.

 

[Pax]

Michael,

The earliest Christians did see seven distinct sacraments. I have already pointed to baptism, ordination, and marriage; now we will get into confession/penance.

The reason we confess our sins to a priest is because this is the way God set up the rights of penance.

In the book of Genesis we read all about the fall of Adam and Eve and about Cain killing Able. While God knew exactly what had happened and what sins had been committed, God still asks Adam and Eve [see Gen 3:11-14] what they had done. Again, when Cain kills Able in Gen 4:10, God asks Cain “What have you done?” God wants us to confess and it is therefore necessary for us to do so.

So where does the priest fit in? In Leviticus 5:5-6 we have a solid prefiguring/foreshadowing of confession and this is carried over into the New Covenant. In Lev. 5:5-6 it says, “When a man is guilty in any of these, he shall confess the sin he has committed, and he shall bring his guilt offering to the Lord for the sin which he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin.” Note how the penitent must confess and take his sin offering to the priest, and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin. This requires knowledge of the sin on the part of the priest.

In the New Testament we have a number of verses that refer to the authority to forgive sins. In Matthew 9:6-8, we read “But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins”–he then said to the paralytic --“Rise, take up your bed and go home.” And he rose and went home. When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men." Notice how scripture says that such authority had been given to men. This is significant and is not merely a coincidence. This is the inspired word of God.

The question of authority and power to forgive sin is given obviously to Jesus and this is further affirmed in Matthew 28:18 where we are told, "And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”

So just how is this authority transfered to the apostles and their successors? In John 20:21-23 "Jesus said to them, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” This is an incredible set of verses. They are rich in meaning and power. Notice that Jesus sends the apostles in the same way that the Father sent Him. The Father sent Jesus with all power and authority which included the power to forgive sins. So also Jesus sends the apostles. Jesus breathes on the apostles and says, “receive the Holy Spirit.” There is only one other time in all of scripture where God breathes on man, and that is in Genesis when God breathes life into Adam. This is a significant moment in the upper room and it is at this moment that Jesus says, “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven: if you retain the sins of any they are retained.”

Later in the new testament scriptures we find additional verses that speak to confession and reconciliation. The most significant are the following:

2 Corinthians 5: 17-20
Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

James 5:14-15
Is any among you sick? Let him call for the presbyters [priests] 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.

James 5:16
Therefore confess you sins to one another….

In the early church confession and penance were very public. It was not uncommon for those that commited serious sins to wear sack cloth and ashes for an extended period of time as part of their penance. Overtime, the public aspects of confession and penance were {mercifully} done away with.

cont. on next post

 

[Pax]

cont. from prior post

The Catholic Church is the NT extension and fulfillment of Judaism and the OT. Each of the sacraments has an OT foundation and prefiguring.

The Eucharist was considered the body and blood of Jesus from the beginning. This is clear in the NT scriptures of the Last Supper and John Chapter 6 where Jesus gives the Discourse on the Bread of Life. Even Paul reiterates this truth in 1 Corinthians Chapters 10 and 11. The apostle John discipled and ordained Ignatius of Antioch. Ignatius was a 1st century bishop and martyr. On his way to Rome to be martyred, he wrote a number of letters to local churches. In his letter to the Church at Smyrna, Ignatius condemns the docetists. In this condemnation he specifically points out that they do not participate in the Eucharist because they deny that it is the body and blood of the Lord Jesus.
It doesn’t get any more clear than that.

Now these sacraments are indeed distinct. Obviously, marriage is not the Eucharist, baptism, confession, or Holy Orders. All of these things are quite clear in the NT and in the writings of the early church fathers. The history is readily available and is not some simple picking and choosing of those things that please us.