What's Your Authority?

[eazyduzit]

I see Randy has already answered this part of your question. I have nothing to add as far as scriptural evidence. I realize that this does not fit in real well the position that it is just “Jesus and me”, but it has never been that way. It is why Jesus started a Church rather than handing out Bibles to everyone and telling them “good luck”? Our priests offer the one, acceptable sacrifice to the Father “from the setting of the sun to its rising”, and that sacrifice is Jesus Christ.

Purgatory is the mercy of God in action. Yes, it is required because we have sinned. Purgatory exists precisely because Christ shed his blood for us and our sins can be forgiven. Many of us will die with some sin still staining our souls. Because nothing impure can enter heaven, if we die in sin which is not mortal we must be cleansed after we die. Here is a little blurb from Catholic Answers which gives scriptural support for the doctrine:

"Christ refers to the sinner who “will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (Matt. 12:32), suggesting that one can be freed after death of the consequences of one’s sins. Similarly, Paul tells us that, when we are judged, each man’s work will be tried. And what happens if a righteous man’s work fails the test? “He will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire” (1 Cor 3:15). Now this loss, this penalty, can’t refer to consignment to hell, since no one is saved there; and heaven can’t be meant, since there is no suffering (“fire”) there. The Catholic doctrine of purgatory alone explains this passage."

Agreed. I don’t think any Catholic would say different. He promised to remain with his Church until the end of time. As I said, the Church is the Body of Christ and Jesus is its Head. That is why the voice of the Church is the voice of Christ. So, the Church is not a replacement for Christ, it is his Body and he can never be separated from his Body. The Church, then, is the means of salvation for the world because it is Christ’s presence on earth and possesses the sacraments established by Christ through which we are forgiven, fed and sanctified.

Well, we can parse words if you like but establish also means to “begin”. I think you would agree that Christ started or began his own Church.

We agree completely. Christ cannot be separated from his Body. It is the head which commands the body. Not sure how this supports your position that the Scriptures do not belong to the Church. If they belong to Christ then they belong to the Church because WE ARE ONE BODY. Does the food I eat only belong to my stomach? Do the words I hear only belong to my ears? Do the steps I take only belong to my feet? No. everything I do belongs to my entire body, from my head to my toes.

Preaching is certainly one of the things the Church has been commanded to do. However, when Jesus commanded the Apostles to “teach all nations” he, in the same breath, also commanded them to Baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; i.e. to administer a sacrament. The Church was established in order to carry on the work of salvation started by Christ while he walked the earth. Why do you think he gave the Apostles the authority to forgive sins if all they were to do was to preach? Why did he give them the authority to bind and loose, if all they were to do was preach? Why did Christ command them to eat his flesh and drink his blood and to do this in remembrance of him, if all they were to do is preach?

Peace.

Steve

Well Steve, I’m confused. On what basis can one fellowship with God if sins are not fully purified until after you’re dead? What good is that?
I approach a holy God by faith that I have been justified by the blood of Christ according to Rm5:19. Its about believing what God has promised. That’s what honors Him. The Bible says that “where sin abounded, grace did much more abound”. That is good news!
If purgatory is the gospel, then it is not very good news.
Your little blurb from CA does not offer scriptural support. Mt.12:32 is not speaking of forgiveness, but of the unforgivable sin so of course it cannot be forgiven at any time.
1Cor.3 is not about salvation at all but about rewards to be received in the future v.14.
Nothing about forgiveness. Its the WORKS that can be burned here, not the soul. Furthermore, you have got the timeline messed up. Even the notes in my Catholic Bible admit that that this scenario will occur in the age to come or after the second coming, and by then Purgatory will have ceased to exist!
Here’s a verse for you that speaks against purgatory. “And if the tree fall toward the south or toward the north, in the place where the tree falleth, there it shall be”. Ecl. 11:3

It does not have to follow that the Church is the “means” of salvation but only what the bible says. Paul says that God “hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation”, not the sacraments. Why would Paul say “Christ sent me not to baptise, but to preach the gospel” if baptism was the important thing?

 

[Ron_Obvious]

Well Steve, I’m confused. This is understandable. The protestant revolt has resulted in mass confusion among the faithful.

If purgatory is the gospel, then it is not very good news.

You are simply incorrect here. Purgatory shows the mercy of God. Remember, nothing unclean will enter heaven (Rev 21:27) How many of us can say we are perfectly clean right now?

**Your little blurb from CA does not offer scriptural support. Mt.12:32 is not speaking of forgiveness, but of the unforgivable sin so of course it cannot be forgiven at any time.
1Cor.3 is not about salvation at all but about rewards to be received in the future v.14.
Nothing about forgiveness. Its the WORKS that can be burned here, not the soul. **

This is based on your private interpretation of the scriptures, which you seem to give great weight to. The subject of this thread is “What’s your authority?” Well, what is your authority? It’s obviously not the Church, according to you. Is it scripture alone? Or is it your interpretation of the scriptures that become the authority? As Catholics, we recognize the church, which is responsible for us having the scripture, is the body who authentically interprets the scripture. You however, remove the scriptures from the Church, take the interpretive authority from the Church, and place yourself as that interpretive authority.

**Here’s a verse for you that speaks against purgatory. “And if the tree fall toward the south or toward the north, in the place where the tree falleth, there it shall be”. Ecl. 11:3 **

More private judgement theology. Please tell me, why should we accept your understanding of the scriptures, 2000 yrs removed from Christ, over the collective wisdom of popes, doctors, saints, and early church fathers over the course of 2000 yrs? Do you have some insight that they don’t?

It does not have to follow that the Church is the “means” of salvation but only what the bible says. Paul says that God “hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation”, not the sacraments. Why would Paul say “Christ sent me not to baptise, but to preach the gospel” if baptism was the important thing?

Where does the bible say, go by “only what the bible says” This is where the debate will end for you, because this is stated nowhere.

As for baptism, I reference 1 Peter 3:21. Is your interpretation of that verse also superior to the Church’s understanding of that verse?

 

[LionHeart777]

Lion-

I have often wondered what will happen when I’m walking down the streets of heaven and pass by a beautiful saint from some unknown century, and I think to myself, “Wow…did you see the wings on that one?”

That is an example of an attachment that must be purified before I enter heaven.

 

[LionHeart777]

…I agree that we need to see the Mt. 16 passage from a Hebrew perspective for how else could a Jewish fisherman understand it? When Jesus said the word for rock, how could Peter have thought of anything but the psalms of David. Who constantly calls the Lord "his rock and fortress. It is a theme that stands out in the prayers of David recorded the historical books also….

Ok here’s my follow up to this part. I was referencing the Mt. 18 passage and gave a citation from a source talking about the terms “bind” and “loose”, albeit the source was talking about the terms as found in Mt. 16:18-19. But at least I hope that gives you a different point of view on those terms if you hadn’t seen that explanation before, and I hope you can see that those are Rabbinical terms and they are indeed terms of authority.

It is true that God is referred to as “the Rock “ (one place I know of is the NT where Christ is referred to as such.–the passage will follow in a citation from St. Ambrose.) But in the Catholic view, to have Simon be called a rock in one passage and Christ in another is not contradictory but rather complementary. Consider the words of St. Ambrose, the 4th century Bishop of Milan (who Baptized St. Augustine) :

“’Christ is the Rock, 'For they drank from that spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ, ’ and He did not refuse to bestow the favor of this title even upon His disciple, so that he too might be ‘Peter,’ in that he has from the Rock a solid consistancy of firm faith.’ (Ambrose, Expos. in Luc.).”

A similar complementary view is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church par. 552;

“552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Our Lord then declared to him: ‘You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.’ Christ, the ‘living Stone’, thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.”

Also, the metaphor of a rock is used in another passage in the OT (Isaiah 51:1-2). Do you believe it is possible that Abraham is being referred to as the rock in this passage?

…But Jesus had already renamed or nicknamed Simon in Jn. 1:42 “Cephas, which is is by interpretation, A stone”. And as we know in Peter’s first letter he refers to believers as also “living stones” implying that he also is that. What I am saying is that it is doubtfull that he would see himself as ‘the rock’ because it would make him equal with God because it is such a common analogy.

As Abu said, Cephas (Greek) is the transliteration of Kepha (Aramaic.) As Protestant scholar D.A. Carson has pointed out regarding Mt. 16:18-19:

“[T]he underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (‘you are kepha’ and ‘on this kepha’), since the word was used both for a name and for a ‘rock.’ The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with a dialect of Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses.”

I disagree with your premise that calling someone other than God “rock” makes such a one equal to God. And if Peter is just merely another “living stone”, and there is nothing unique about him as compared to the other Apostles, why is he the only one who bears such a name?

Regards,

Nick

 

[eazyduzit]

Ok here’s my follow up to this part. I was referencing the Mt. 18 passage and gave a citation from a source talking about the terms “bind” and “loose”, albeit the source was talking about the terms as found in Mt. 16:18-19. But at least I hope that gives you a different point of view on those terms if you hadn’t seen that explanation before, and I hope you can see that those are Rabbinical terms and they are indeed terms of authority.

It is true that God is referred to as “the Rock “ (one place I know of is the NT where Christ is referred to as such.–the passage will follow in a citation from St. Ambrose.) But in the Catholic view, to have Simon be called a rock in one passage and Christ in another is not contradictory but rather complementary. Consider the words of St. Ambrose, the 4th century Bishop of Milan (who Baptized St. Augustine) :

“’Christ is the Rock, 'For they drank from that spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ, ’ and He did not refuse to bestow the favor of this title even upon His disciple, so that he too might be ‘Peter,’ in that he has from the Rock a solid consistancy of firm faith.’ (Ambrose, Expos. in Luc.).”

A similar complementary view is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church par. 552;

“552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Our Lord then declared to him: ‘You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.’ Christ, the ‘living Stone’, thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.”

Also, the metaphor of a rock is used in another passage in the OT (Isaiah 51:1-2). Do you believe it is possible that Abraham is being referred to as the rock in this passage?

As Abu said, Cephas (Greek) is the transliteration of Kepha (Aramaic.) As Protestant scholar D.A. Carson has pointed out regarding Mt. 16:18-19:

“[T]he underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (‘you are kepha’ and ‘on this kepha’), since the word was used both for a name and for a ‘rock.’ The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with a dialect of Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses.”

I disagree with your premise that calling someone other than God “rock” makes such a one equal to God. And if Peter is just merely another “living stone”, and there is nothing unique about him as compared to the other Apostles, why is he the only one who bears such a name?

Regards,

Nick

Thanks for the additional info Nick, but it doesn’t make it airtight. What it comes down to for me is: which one is the better foundation? Peter was still confused about some things even in Acts. Jesus is the one who makes all the promises, and guarantees His word.The actual rock for me is His Word. Would I be correct to say that your foundation is your Church? As I noted before, in Acts 20:32 Paul commends the brethren to God and to the WORD of grace which is able to build you up, and give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified. For Evangelicals Jesus and His word will always be the best foundation.

 

[Abu]

Jesus is the one who makes all the promises, and guarantees His word.

Exactly – Jesus guarantees His Church with St Peter as His Chief Vicar and the Twelve, with the four promises to St Peter alone, and the sole authority.

The actual rock for me is His Word.

Thus as Jesus makes St Peter the Rock on which He builds His Church, indisputably, the message is stark – stick to the Words of Jesus.

Would I be correct to say that your foundation is your Church? As I noted before, in Acts 20:32 Paul commends the brethren to God and to the WORD of grace which is able to build you up, and give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.

As the only way you and I can have the Sacred Scriptures is because the Catholic Church defined what writings are the Word of God, infallibly through Christ’s mandate, no more and no less, then heed that Word of God guaranteed and made accessible through His Catholic Church: –
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours." (2 Thess 2:15).

“Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me, with faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard this rich trust with the help of the Holy Spirit that dwells within us.” (2 Tim 1:13-14). Again St Paul writes: “And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.” (2 Tim 2:2).

In Colossians 2: 4-23, St Paul calls on his flock to follow Christ “as you were taught” and warns against merely “human precepts and teachings.”

1 Cor 1:10: I urge you brothers, in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.

We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. (1Jn 4:6).

“That we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive.” (Eph 4:14). Further, “For there will come a time when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but having itching ears, will heap up to themselves teachers according to their lusts. And they will turn away their hearing from the truth and turn aside rather to fables.” (2 Tim 4:3).

So where are the selfists now who don’t want to listen to Christ and His Church but do their own thing? That failure to listen to Christ through His Church has produced many thousands of sects all differing in some way in their beliefs!

 

[eazyduzit]

Ron_Obvious:
Where does the bible say, go by “only what the bible says” This is where the debate will end for you, because this is stated nowhere.

As for baptism, I reference 1 Peter 3:21. Is your interpretation of that verse also superior to the Church’s understanding of that verse?

Prov. 30:5,6 is a good warning to me “Every word of God is pure; he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words,lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar”.
I’m sure you would claim that since your church can trace its line back to Peter, it puts you above this.

Peter is saying about baptism that it is a “like figure” and “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh” (the washing of water) but that salvation is “the answer of a of a good conscious toward God”. To make this the reverse is to put Peter against himself, for he said in ch.1:23 that we are “born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever”.

The debate is still on.

 

[Bayou_Catholic]

What it comes down to for me is: which one is the better foundation?

I completley agree with you on this, Eazy. Jesus is the best foundation. Relying soley on St. Peter (or his successers) is a very weak foundation. However, it is not an either/or for us.

Would I be correct to say that your foundation is your Church?

For Catholics it is both Jesus as our foundation and St. Peter’s office as the rock Jesus built His Church. The office of the papacy in and of itself is nothing & has no authority without Christ who gave St. Peter the keys and authority to bind/loose. As well as the authority given to the other apostles.

Also, the Church is our foundation insomuch as it is the body of Christ. The Church as the body is lifeless without the head, Jesus.

 

[eazyduzit]

Exactly – Jesus guarantees His Church with St Peter as His Chief Vicar and the Twelve, with the four promises to St Peter alone, and the sole authority.
Thus as Jesus makes St Peter the Rock on which He builds His Church, indisputably, the message is stark – stick to the Words of Jesus.
As the only way you and I can have the Sacred Scriptures is because the Catholic Church defined what writings are the Word of God, infallibly through Christ’s mandate, no more and no less, then heed that Word of God guaranteed and made accessible through His Catholic Church: –
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours." (2 Thess 2:15).

“Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me, with faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard this rich trust with the help of the Holy Spirit that dwells within us.” (2 Tim 1:13-14). Again St Paul writes: “And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.” (2 Tim 2:2).

In Colossians 2: 4-23, St Paul calls on his flock to follow Christ “as you were taught” and warns against merely “human precepts and teachings.”

1 Cor 1:10: I urge you brothers, in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.

We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. (1Jn 4:6).

“That we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive.” (Eph 4:14). Further, “For there will come a time when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but having itching ears, will heap up to themselves teachers according to their lusts. And they will turn away their hearing from the truth and turn aside rather to fables.” (2 Tim 4:3).

So where are the selfists now who don’t want to listen to Christ and His Church but do their own thing? That failure to listen to Christ through His Church has produced many thousands of sects all differing in some way in their beliefs!

Just because it was eventually desided that that a definitive list of books was needed at some point, it does not mean that no one could know them before that. The early Fathers quoted from all the scriptures long before the list was compiled. It is a fact that the scriptures were in common use in the churches since they were received from the hands of the apostles, but eventually there became challenges that confused people such as Marcion’s canon so there was a need to settle it, but that didn’t mean that no one knew the books.

About Mt16, remember that Jesus did not actually state in exact words that Peter is the rock (foundation) of the church, thus the different understanding. What he said was “you are Peter (rock) and upon this rock I will…” Notice there are two rocks in this verse. Jesus could have said "you are Peter and I will build my Church on thee. Then there would be no cause for confusion, but there has never been unanimous agreement, even among the Fathers, so the one who claims that it is clear does not even know history.
Secondly, it is not really about who Peter is at all. The paricope is really concerned about who Jesus is. That is why Mark and Luke do not even mention Peter and the rock. It is not that significant.

It is not failure to listen to Christ THROUGH His church that caused division. But failure of the Church to listen to Christ.Do you think that Jesus endorsed the sale of forgiveness, or did He endorse sending the Popes private army to try to put down John Hus and his followers in Bohemia by force.

Jesus said, “If ANY man do His will, he will KNOW of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of Myself”. Jn.7:17.

 

[eazyduzit]

Because Jesus set it up that way.

In the OT, the structure of the priesthood looked like this:

1. Aaron, high priest
2. Levites, ministerial priests
3. Israel, a nation of priests

We see a similar structure in the NT.

The New Testament Priesthood Proved from Scripture

1. Jesus, Our Eternal High Priest

“Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.” (Hebrews 4:14)

1. The Ministerial Priesthood

“But I have written very boldly to you on some points so as to remind you again, because of the grace that was given me from God, to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the gospel of God, so that my offering of the Gentiles may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.” (Romans 15:15-16)

1. The Universal Priesthood of All Believers

“But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” (1 Peter 2:9)

When I saw your citation from Romans supporting a priesthood, I thought maybe you were getting a little creative, because it isn’t in the KJV, but then I found to my surprise that you are right. Some of modern versions do actually use the word priest,but only in connection with ministering the gospel and not a sacrament. However, I’m still wondering where the word came from in the old texts? I thought if it would be anywhere, it would be found in the Vulgate, but the word used there is “sanctificans” not sacerdot, meaning to sanctify or treat as holy. In 1Pt. The word is “sacerdotium” which is the common word for priest or priesthood. So, seeing that use of the word “priest” in your verse is a modern addition, and does not even mean a “sacerdot” it does not support a separate ministerial priesthood as you think. Are you willing to concede this or is there something I am still not seeing?

 

[mlz]

Here’s how:

The United States of America

• Consists of people from all different walks of life marching under the same banner, their faith in both the American Flag and the guarantee of the freedoms of the Constitution.
• The American Flag is what unifies the People as one, not the political affiliation an individual most closely associates with.
• Their differences make them strong, but the American Flag gives them hope during the worst of times and the resolve to overcome their enemies.
• The USA’s direction is determined by the People as well as those in positions of authority.
• Those in positions of authority, like the People they serve, differ by their subjective views and political affiliation (i.e. Democrat, Republican, Independent, etc.), but they are nonetheless servants of the People.
• If it weren’t for the People, The USA would not exist.
• They are all different from each other in their opinions, faiths and methodologies, and though they squabble amongst themselves about fairness or who is right or wrong, they are by no means divided.
  “I hold it to be the duty of every public servant, and of every man who in public or private life holds a position of leadership in thought or action, to endeavor honestly and fearlessly to guide his fellow countrymen to right decisions…”
  ~Theodore Roosevelt [A Charter for Democracy - FEB 21, 1912]

—————————————

The Church (which includes the Catholic faith)

• Consists of people from all different walks of life marching under the same banner, their faith in both God Almighty and the guarantee of the Gospel of Christ Jesus.
• God Almighty unifies the community as one, not the brand of faith an individual most closely associates with.
• Their differences make them strong, but God Almighty gives them hope during the worst of times and the resolve to overcome their enemies.
• The Church’s direction is determined by the community as well as those in positions of authority.
• Those in positions of authority, like the community they represent, differ by their subjective views and brand of faith (i.e. Protestant, Catholic, Lutheran, etc.), but they are nonetheless servants of the community.
• If it weren’t for the community, the Church would not exist.
• They are all different from each other in their opinions, faiths and methodologies, and though they squabble amongst themselves about fairness or who is right or wrong, they are by no means divided.
  “Those who received a ministry of leadership, preaching, and administering the sacraments, are not to be considered owners of special powers—masters—but to serve the community, helping her to walk, with joy, the path of holiness.”
  ~Pope Francis [00284-01.01, translated from Italian]

So…that is what Christ intended when He established His Church!!! Really?! I’m surprised that you believe He would establish His Church this way!
mlz
P. S. Been there, believed that…but after awhile this just didn’t make sense to me which led me into looking into the beginning of the Church and her “Church fathers” wanting to know what Jesus left behind as His Church and His perfect plan. (Many churches branching off regardliess to some of the positives is NOT His intention as well intended as you feel)
My love in Him,
mlz

 

[Abu]

eazyduzit #345
Some of modern versions do actually use the word priest,but only in connection with ministering the gospel and not a sacrament. However, I’m still wondering where the word came from in the old texts? I thought if it would be anywhere, it would be found in the Vulgate, but the word used there is “sanctificans” not sacerdot, meaning to sanctify or treat as holy.
So, seeing that use of the word “priest” in your verse is a modern addition, and does not even mean a “sacerdot” it does not support a separate ministerial priesthood as you think. Are you willing to concede this or is there something I am still not seeing?

Yet more evidence of misinformation and the inability to get at the facts.

In the Acts of the Apostles (14:23) Saints Paul and Barnabas “appointed presbyters (=priests) for them in every church.” Paul and Barnabas were bishops who had received at ordination the power to ordain others. In Greek the words used were presbyteros for priest, elder, presbyter, and episcopos for bishop, overseer, supervisor, or guardian. By the time of St Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107) he speaks of the bishop as one who has “acquired his ministry, not from himself, nor through men”, and that he is to be regarded “as the Lord Himself.” (Ep. Ad Philad., 1; Ephes. 6).

St. Ignatius was the third bishop of Antioch and was martyred in Rome in approximately 107 A.D. His letter comes from about 96 A.D. Even at this early date, the threefold hierarchy of bishops, priests (presbyters in Greek), and deacons is present and the practice of celebrating the Holy Eucharist is clearly a long-established practice.

“The substance of the record contained in the Ignatian epistles is this:
While the Christian communities of this period (c.100-110) have many presbyters and deacons, they have only one bishop….there are bishops and the faithful are to obey both the bishops and the presbyters.” The New Biblical Theorists, Msgr George A Kelly, Servant Books, 1983, p 78].

“It is a matter of seeing not simply words as such, but the facts, the realities: seeing the Church live – and as far back as the New Testament.”

Cardinal Lawrence Shehan says that the NT is not a book of neat linguistics. He cites the New American Bible, Hinds, Noble and Eldredge’s Greek English Dictionary, the English Jerusalem Bible, Goodspeed’s translation of the Chicago Bible, Kleist-Lilly, Joseph Fitzmer, SJ, and Fr Andre Feuillet’s The Priesthood of Christ and His Ministers as all acknowledging priests or priesthood in the NT under a variety of terms – presbuteroi, leitourgos, hierourgos, Leitourgon, Leitourgon hierougounta. “The absence of the use of the one term hierus is evidence merely that this one term was not used, not that priest or priesthood are unacknowledged in the NT.” [See *The New Biblical Theorists, Servant Books, 1983, by Msgr George A Kelly, p 84].

Pope Clement I writing to the Church of Corinth reminds the rebels at Corinth that the apostles ordained bishops and deacons, and unquestionably expects them to respect men: “who had been appointed by the apostles or afterward by other eminent men……The apostles are from Christ…they appointed their first fruits – after having tested them through the Spirit – to be the bishops and deacons of the future believers.” The New Biblical Theorists, Msgr George A Kelly, Servant Books, 1983, p 97-98].

 

[Ron_Obvious]

Prov. 30:5,6 is a good warning to me “Every word of God is pure; he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words,lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar”.
I’m sure you would claim that since your church can trace its line back to Peter, it puts you above this.

**This verse is not proof of sola scriptura, no matter how much you wish it so. Of course every word of God is pure. Catholics agree and have no problem with this verse. However, cherry picking verses will not help your cause. This verse says nothing about scripture (all 73 books) being the sole authority for a Christian. Scripture does, however, talk of an authoritative church. (1 Tim 3:15)

Yes, the Church traces her line back to Peter. However, you are wrong in implying the church puts herself ahead of scripture. “Yet the magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it.” (CCC 86)

So eazyduzit, the Cahtolic Church does not put herself above the scriptures as you like to believe, she puts herself ahead of eazyduzit. The Catholic Church is an authentic, authoritative interpreter of the scriptures, not eazyduzit. Where should the average person go in this world when a debate over a scripture passage occurs, the Catholic Church, or eazyduzit?

The Church receives authority from Christ. Eazyduzit receives authority from Eazyduzit.**
Peter is saying about baptism that it is a “like figure” and “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh” (the washing of water) but that salvation is “the answer of a of a good conscious toward God”. To make this the reverse is to put Peter against himself, for he said in ch.1:23 that we are “born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever”.

**Sorry eazy, your interpretation is a novelty. Peter says “Baptism saves you.” You seem to believe Baptism doesn’t save. Who do I listen to…Peter or Eazyduzit? Is your understanding, 2000 years removed, better than how the earliest Christians understood it? Answer that directly, please.

www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/baptism-saves-you**

The debate is still on.

**You still didn’t answer my question earlier. Does your authority supercede the Catholic Church when it comes to interpreting the scriptures? **

 

[ffg]

It does not have to follow that the Church is the “means” of salvation but only what the bible says. Paul says that God “hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation”, not the sacraments. Why would Paul say “Christ sent me not to baptise, but to preach the gospel” if baptism was the important thing?

I thought this was interesting.

Was Jesus (God) saying ‘don’t do this’ by going to John to be baptized?

Or is it possible Jesus leads (teaches) by example?

 

[LionHeart777]

Thanks for the additional info Nick, but it doesn’t make it airtight. What it comes down to for me is: which one is the better foundation? Peter was still confused about some things even in Acts. Jesus is the one who makes all the promises, and guarantees His word.The actual rock for me is His Word. Would I be correct to say that your foundation is your Church? As I noted before, in Acts 20:32 Paul commends the brethren to God and to the WORD of grace which is able to build you up, and give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified. For Evangelicals Jesus and His word will always be the best foundation.

Eazy (if I may?),

You asked me, “which one is the better foundation?”. I would ask better foundation of what? Or for what? When talking about St. Peter being the foundation of the Church, if I am not mistaken, what is meant is the constitution of the Church, which Christ established in history.

As one example of the many Fathers who refer to St. Peter as the foundation of the Church, I will cite St. Ephraim the Syrian:

“’[Jesus said:] ‘Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples’ ’ (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).”

Now, you said to me, “For Evangelicals Jesus and His word will always be the best foundation.”

I understand this. My questions would be: foundation of what? For what?

Again, when discussing St. Peter as being set aside by Christ and given a specific office, and being being made the foundation of the Church that Christ built (as found in Scripture), what is being discussed is the constitution of the Church He built. A 9th century Syriac Bishop of Haran (Pre-East-West schism), named Theodore Abu Qurrah, talking about the office of St. Peter, in the context of all of the heresies that had assaulted the Church before his time, wrote:

"'You should understand that the head of the Apostles was St. Peter, to whom Christ said, ‘You are the rock; and on this rock I shall build my church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it.’ After his resurrection, he also said to him three times, while on the shore of the sea of Tiberius, ‘Simon, do you love me? Feed my lambs, rams and ewes.’ In another passage, he said to him, ‘Simon, Satan will ask to sift you like wheat, and I prayed that you not lose your faith; but you, at that time, have compassion on your brethren and strengthen them.’ Do you not see that St. Peter is the foundation of the church, selected to shepherd it, that those who believe in his faith will never lose their faith, and that he was ordered to have compassion on his brethren and to strengthen them? As for Christ’s words, ‘I have prayed for you, that you not lose your faith; but you, have compassion on your brethren, at that time, and strengthen them’, we do not think that he meant St. Peter himself. Rather, he meant nothing more than the holders of the seat of St. Peter, that is, Rome. Just as when he said to the apostles, ‘I am with you always, until the end of the age’, he did not mean just the apostles themselves, but also those who would be in charge of their seats and their flocks; in the same way, when he spoke his last words to St. Peter, ‘Have compassion, at that time, and strengthen your brethren; and your faith will not be lost’, he meant by this nothing other than the holders of his seat.

Yet another indication of this is the fact that among the apostles it was St. Peter alone who lost his faith and denied Christ, which Christ may have allowed to happen to Peter so as to teach us that it was not Peter that he meant by these words. Moreover, we know of no apostle who fell and needed St. Peter to strengthen him. If someone says that Christ meant by these words only St. Peter himself, this person causes the church to lack someone to strengthen it after the death of St. Peter. How could this happen, especially when we see all the sifting of the church that came from Satan after the apostles’ death? All of this indicates that Christ did not mean them by these words. Indeed, everyone knows that the heretics attacked the church only after the death of the apostles – Paul of Samosata, Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, Sabelllius, Apollinaris, Origen, and others. If he meant by these words in the gospel only St. Peter, the church would have been deprived of comfort and would have had no one to deliver her from those heretics, whose heresies are truly ‘the gates of hell’, which Christ said would not overcome the church. Accordingly, there is no doubt that he meant by these words nothing other than the holders of the seat of St. Peter, who have continually strengthened their brethren and will not cease to do so as long as this present age lasts.’ (pp. 68-69)"

---

 

[LionHeart777]

continued…

But again, when discussing St. Peter as being set aside and given a specific office with a specific role, and being being made the foundation of the Church that Christ built (as found in Scripture), what is being discussed is the constitution of the Church He built. A 9th century Syriac Bishop of Haran (Pre-East-West schism), named Theodore Abu Qurrah, talking about this role of St. Peter, in the context of all of the heresies that had assaulted the Church before his time wrote:

"'You should understand that the head of the Apostles was St. Peter, to whom Christ said, ‘You are the rock; and on this rock I shall build my church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it.’ After his resurrection, he also said to him three times, while on the shore of the sea of Tiberius, ‘Simon, do you love me? Feed my lambs, rams and ewes.’ In another passage, he said to him, ‘Simon, Satan will ask to sift you like wheat, and I prayed that you not lose your faith; but you, at that time, have compassion on your brethren and strengthen them.’ Do you not see that St. Peter is the foundation of the church, selected to shepherd it, that those who believe in his faith will never lose their faith, and that he was ordered to have compassion on his brethren and to strengthen them? As for Christ’s words, ‘I have prayed for you, that you not lose your faith; but you, have compassion on your brethren, at that time, and strengthen them’, we do not think that he meant St. Peter himself. Rather, he meant nothing more than the holders of the seat of St. Peter, that is, Rome. Just as when he said to the apostles, ‘I am with you always, until the end of the age’, he did not mean just the apostles themselves, but also those who would be in charge of their seats and their flocks; in the same way, when he spoke his last words to St. Peter, ‘Have compassion, at that time, and strengthen your brethren; and your faith will not be lost’, he meant by this nothing other than the holders of his seat.

Yet another indication of this is the fact that among the apostles it was St. Peter alone who lost his faith and denied Christ, which Christ may have allowed to happen to Peter so as to teach us that it was not Peter that he meant by these words. Moreover, we know of no apostle who fell and needed St. Peter to strengthen him. If someone says that Christ meant by these words only St. Peter himself, this person causes the church to lack someone to strengthen it after the death of St. Peter. How could this happen, especially when we see all the sifting of the church that came from Satan after the apostles’ death? All of this indicates that Christ did not mean them by these words. Indeed, everyone knows that the heretics attacked the church only after the death of the apostles – Paul of Samosata, Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, Sabelllius, Apollinaris, Origen, and others. If he meant by these words in the gospel only St. Peter, the church would have been deprived of comfort and would have had no one to deliver her from those heretics, whose heresies are truly ‘the gates of hell’, which Christ said would not overcome the church. Accordingly, there is no doubt that he meant by these words nothing other than the holders of the seat of St. Peter, who have continually strengthened their brethren and will not cease to do so as long as this present age lasts.’ (pp. 68-69)"

 

[LionHeart777]

Oops. Here is the link for that citation of Theodore Abu Qurrah.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Are you willing to concede this or is there something I am still not seeing?

Did Jesus Give Priests to the Church?
By Kenneth J. Howell
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0404sbs.asp

OBJECTOR: The Catholic Church has priests who are distinct from the laity and even elevated above them. This is unscriptural because the New Testament nowhere sets certain men apart from the rest of God’s people to be priests.

CATHOLIC: Surely you would agree that the New Testament authorizes leaders of the Church to be pastors, deacons, maybe even bishops.

OBJECTOR: Yes, but the word priest is never used in the New Testament for the leaders of the Church. The words pastor, bishop, and elder are used, but never priest.

CATHOLIC: That’s almost correct. The word hiereus (priest) is not used of church leaders in the New Testament, but the cognate verb hierourgeo (to act as a priest) is used in Romans 15:16. There Paul speaks of himself in these words: “to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.”

OBJECTOR: Paul may have used the verb to describe his missionary work. You’ll notice that he speaks of the Gentiles as his offering. He is not offering something on behalf of the Gentiles; he thinks of the new people of God as the offering.

CATHOLIC: Paul’s use of “to act as a priest” (hierourgeo) fits with the Catholic Church’s understanding of a priest as one who intercedes for the people of God as an intermediary. The priest today, like Paul, offers the people back to God in union with the perfect sacrifice of Christ, the great high priest.

OBJECTOR: I have no problem with that understanding as long as we realize that Paul was one of the people of God. As an apostle, he guided the Church and was one of its pastors, but the priesthood was a concept that applied to all God’s people, not some select group of men.

CATHOLIC: We agree in one respect. The non-Catholic doctrine of the priesthood of all believers is not an idea that the Church rejects. In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says clearly that all of God’s faithful people share in the priesthood of Christ by virtue of their baptism: “Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church ‘a kingdom, priests for his God and Father’” (CCC 1546, cf. Rev. 1:6, 5:9–10). Further, it says, “The whole Church is a priestly people. Through baptism all the faithful share in the priesthood of Christ. This participation is called the ‘common priesthood of all the faithful.’ Based on this common priesthood and ordered to its service, there exists another participation in the mission of Christ: the ministry conferred by the sacrament of holy orders, where the task is to serve in the name and in the person of Christ the head in the midst of the community” (1591). In other words, the existence of a common priesthood for all God’s people does not exclude a special calling for the pastors of the Church to be priests.

OBJECTOR: But that’s not what the New Testament says. When Peter speaks of priesthood, he applies it to the whole people of God. “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Pet. 2:9). As you can see, this expression “royal priesthood” refers to all of God’s people, not a special class of men.

CATHOLIC: Peter is, of course, speaking of the “common priesthood of all the faithful” of which the Catechism spoke. But why do you insist that this excludes a special role for those men chosen by God to serve as priests for and to God’s people?

OBJECTOR: Because it’s not part of the New Testament teaching on the government of the Church. The priesthood of Christ is unique and cannot be repeated. Christ appointed shepherds for the Church as Jesus taught Peter in John 21:15–19. As we said, these leaders are called elders (or presbyters) and deacons, but never priests except for the Romans 15:16 text you cited.

CATHOLIC: Perhaps you are unaware that priests in the Catholic Church are also called presbyters, which is usually translated as “elders” in most English Bibles. They are the elders who guide the Church under the authority of the bishops (called episkopoi in the New Testament).

OBJECTOR: Well, I didn’t know that, but I still don’t see how it changes anything. First Peter 2:9 still applies to the whole Church and not to some select group of leaders, be they presbyters or bishops.

CATHOLIC: You will notice that 1 Peter 2:9 is quoting from a number of Old Testament texts. One of them is Exodus 19:6, where the people of Israel are called “a kingdom of priests.” Isaiah 61:6 says that in the New Covenant times, the restored people of God will be called “priests of the Lord.”

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

OBJECTOR: Yes, these texts from the Old Testament just confirm my point that all the people of God are considered priests in the Bible and especially in the New Testament. This is what we call the “priesthood of all believers.”

CATHOLIC: But surely you must agree that, just because the people as a whole in the Old Covenant played a priestly role, it did not exclude a special calling for the Levites as priests. As I am sure you know, there is abundant evidence in the Old Testament for a special priesthood for the one tribe of Levi. Deuteronomy 18:1–8 is just one among many such passages. This special priesthood could not be held by just anyone. It was restricted to those who were called. The author of Hebrews speaks of this Old Covenant priesthood in these terms in Hebrews 5:1–4. Now, if there were two kinds of priesthood in the Old Covenant—we might call them “the priesthood of the faithful” and “the ministerial priesthood”—then why can there not be this same distinction in the New Covenant?

OBJECTOR: We agree about the Old Covenant priesthood, but that is precisely what is changed in the New Covenant about the priesthood. Now only Christ himself has the ministerial priesthood. The priesthood of Aaron ended with the coming of Christ. The book of Hebrews makes that abundantly clear.

CATHOLIC: Okay, we agree on at least two points. First, Christ’s priesthood fulfills and supersedes the Aaronic priesthood. As you say, the letter to the Hebrews makes that clear. And second, we agree that the entire people of God plays a priestly role in interceding for the world before God. But the Catholic Church insists that a ministerial priesthood exists in the New Covenant structure of the Church. This priesthood is based on and flows from Christ’s own priesthood. A properly ordained priest of the Church shares in a heightened and special way in the priesthood of Christ because he offers to God the same sacrifice that Jesus offered to God the Father. Jesus offered himself as the sacrifice to atone for sin (cf. 1 John 4:10; Heb. 9:12, 14, 26), and the priest today offers Jesus Christ back to the Father as the atonement for our sins.

OBJECTOR: I just don’t see any texts in the New Testament that teach what the Catholic Church is saying. I agree with all you say about Christ’s priesthood, but God designed the Church to have pastors who care for the flock. These men were not supposed to be priests. The idea of a special priesthood is just not in the New Testament.

CATHOLIC: I can offer you at least four lines of evidence. But first, do you agree that Christ called some men to be his special representatives, such as in Matthew 4:19, Luke 6:13, and John 15:16? Do you agree that these men are called apostles and they are the human foundation of the Church (cf. Eph. 2:20)?

OBJECTOR: I agree, but where is the idea of a ministerial priesthood in those texts?

CATHOLIC: Consider first Matthew 28:18–20, where Jesus commissioned the apostles to go “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.” This twofold ministry of baptizing and teaching can be summarized in the phrase “the ministry of word and sacrament.” In other words, the apostles and those after them were to preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments.

OBJECTOR: Many forms of Protestant theology—for instance, Lutheran and Calvinist—would agree with this ministry of word and sacrament, but they don’t agree that this constitutes a priestly function.

CATHOLIC: Then let’s look at the second and third lines of evidence. The easier of the two is expressed in John 20:19–23, where Jesus empowers the apostles with the authority to confer forgiveness on the penitent. For the sake of brevity, I quote only verse 23: “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” This power to forgive sins, to convey God’s forgiveness through the sacrament of confession, is clearly a part of the priestly function of Christ. In this text, Jesus is conveying this authority to his apostles.

OBJECTOR: I am sure you know that many Christians don’t agree with this interpretation. We believe that Jesus is giving his apostles the authority to proclaim his forgiveness to all, not to forgive them in the way you say, since he himself is the only one who can do that.

CATHOLIC: Yes, I know this interpretation, but if you study the text carefully, I think you’ll agree that the common interpretation among non-Catholics simply does not fit the text. That is, it doesn’t take the text seriously. Jesus speaks of “the sins you forgive” and “the sins you retain.” We Catholics take this text seriously and believe that the forgiveness that comes only from Jesus can be conferred on those who repent because Jesus himself gave that authority to the apostles and their successors.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

OBJECTOR: Well, perhaps we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one. What is this third piece of evidence you mentioned?

CATHOLIC: The third line of evidence has to do with the Eucharist. At the Last Supper, Jesus told the apostles with him “Do this in memory of me.” When Jesus gave them this command, he was making them priests of the New Covenant.

OBJECTOR: That’s a strange idea. What makes you think that the phrase “Do this in memory of me” has anything to do with being a priest? Those words are addressed to every Christian and apply to our celebrations of communion in church. I just don’t see any connection between those words and the priesthood.

CATHOLIC: You’re not alone. But consider first to whom these words were addressed. Jesus did not say they apply to every Christian. If that is true, it could be so only by an extension of the original situation. A more historically responsible interpretation sees the fact that it was just the apostles at that Last Supper.

OBJECTOR: Even if I agree with you on that score, that doesn’t mean that Jesus is making the apostles priests. All these words mean is that we should remember Jesus when we have communion.

CATHOLIC: If that’s what the words really meant, your conclusion would be true that “Do this in memory of me” has nothing to do with being a priest. But they mean a lot more. As I noted, they were first spoken to the apostles. I don’t have time to go into detail here, but let me at least say this: “Do this in memory of me” was a command from Jesus for the apostles to do exactly what he did that night. They were to repeat this action in perpetuity. It is also clear that his actions were priestly because he was offering the bread and wine just like Melchizedek did (cf. Gen. 14:17–20). As you know, Hebrews makes it abundantly clear that Jesus is a priest in the line of Melchizedek. In a higher sense, Jesus was acting as a priest at the Last Supper by giving the apostles his body and blood. Therefore, his command to his apostles involves them performing priestly actions. They could perform such actions only if he were making them priests to stand in his place and to give the people of God his body and blood.

OBJECTOR: Well, I must say, I have never heard this interpretation before, but it seems like a stretch to me to see all that in the account of the Last Supper. It just doesn’t fit with the rest of the New Testament.

CATHOLIC: Remember that we all read the Bible through the eyes of our communities of faith. I can understand why such an interpretation will seem strange to you if you have little or no experience with a priestly ministry in your church. Perhaps my last line of evidence will help you to get thinking in that direction. But first, let me sum up the first three. What we see in the Old Testament is a three-fold priesthood. There is the common or universal priesthood of all Israelites at the bottom (cf. Ex. 19:6), a ministerial priesthood above them (cf. Ex. 19:22, 24; Lev. 1:5), and a high priest at the top (cf. Num. 35: 25). We thus should expect to find a similar three-fold priesthood under the New Covenant, and we do. There is the common or universal priesthood of all Christians (cf. 1 Pet. 2:5, 9), a ministerial priesthood above them (cf. Rom. 15:16), and a high priest at the top (cf. Heb. 3:1). Rather than varying from the biblical model of priesthood, the Catholic understanding copies it exactly. It is the two-fold model that departs from what we see in the Bible.

OBJECTOR: You said you have a fourth line of evidence. What could that possibly be?

CATHOLIC: You believe, I am sure, that the whole purpose of the eternal Word (Logos) becoming flesh was to reconcile us to God. Now, in order to have a ministry of reconciliation, Christ had to be a priest as well as a prophet and king. In fact, his act of reconciling death highlighted his priestly office more than anything else. Paul tells us in 2 Corinthians 5:18–23 that the same God “who through Christ reconciled us to himself” is also the one who “gave us the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18). “The message of reconciliation” in verse 19 is that God does not hold men’s transgressions against them. That is the ministry of the priests in the Catholic Church: They are to be agents of reconciliation by carrying Christ the Reconciler to others. That ultimately is why God chooses some men from among his people to be his priests. Priests reconcile people to God.