What's Your Authority?

[eazyduzit]

Thanks for giving me more work, Randy.

You ask “Why can there not be the same distinction in the New Covenant”? The answer is
because the sacrifice of Christ changes everything.

You said that Priests reconcile people to God. Right, that was the purpose under the Old Covenant and under the Order of Levi, but Jesus is not part of the old order. He brings a “new and living way”. 1Jn 1:1,2 says “if any man sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And HE is the propitiation for our sins”. This means for all time, without limitations.

Notice that your priest must, like the OT priest, stand before the alter and minister on a daily basis(Heb 10:11) But in contrast to this, v.12 says"but this man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; for by one offering He has perfected for ever them that are sanctified". Notice that Jesus has SAT DOWN. This means the sacrifice is done, over, ended, completed finished. Nothing more to be done, which ties in perfectly with v.18 -“Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin” OK did we get that?, "NO MORE OFFERING FOR SIN’. There is no ambiguity about this. This is why ch. 4 explains that God has rested from His works. And if God has rested or ended His works, we are warned to also cease from our works. V.11-“Let us labor therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief”. Therefore it is clear that there is no longer a reason to offer a sacrifice for sins. This is then perfectly consistent with Heb. 13:15 which explains that now our offering is the “sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to His name”. This is the work of the royal priesthood, to believe and trust that God has already done all and fulfilled every requirement of the law. It is this faith that pleases God.

You said that it is the Catholic priests who reconcile people to God. And that they “carry Christ to others”. But the bible does not say to call on a priest to be saved. It very specifically says that “whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved”. (Rm10:13). There is no intermediary needed.

If it is true that people can only be be reconciled by a human priestly ministry then that should be the clearest and most important message in the NT. In Acts 6:4, the Apostles appointed deacons so that they could give themselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the WORD". Not sacraments.

So then to recap, the offering of the church is not to “offer the same sacrifice back to God”, but to “offer the sacrifice of praise to God”. (Heb.13:15)

 

[eazyduzit]

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)"

---

I’m not familiar with the “Constitution of the Church”. Could you give me a verse for that? I assume it basically means- We claim Peter and therefore we inherit authority over all things.

You ask " foundation of what?" Well, the important quality of a foundations is that it provides stability. If it slides or sinks, the house will fall. Without a solid anchor I will be blown in a strange direction by every wind of doctrine. St. Peter, just as every other writer of scripture, warns about false teachers bringing damnable heresies. He even said “many shall follow” and all that he says is that Jesus is the “chief cornerstone” and “he that believeth on Him shall not be confounded”. He never mentions the church.

For Peter, ministry is very simple. It works “one to another” since “every man hath received the gift” 1Pt4:10. He also affirms that with God, there is no “respect of persons”. 1Pt 1:17
Moreover, he calls Jesus the "Shepherd and Bishop of your souls"1Pt 2:25. Not the Church. Why can’t we just model our ministry after Peter’s example instead of our own ideas.

 

[eazyduzit]

Reply to post #348

What it comes down to is who or what can guarantee the final truth, seeing that the results are not yet in. In the book of Revelation, Jesus says “he that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches” not The Church. I should have an ear to hear, if I belong to Christ. Thus , the final responsibility for ole eazy falls on me. Yet, if I am trusting in Jesus, not the church. Then He is the final guarantee of my faith. He promised to be both the author and finisher of it. Where the cults get off is they listen to the false prophets more than the word of God.

Which is why Paul says in Acts 20:32 “And now brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of His grace (not the church) which is able to build you up, and give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified”.

There is no “seat of St. Peter” in scripture, but we do know what he actually said about doing the work of ministry. “As EVERY man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God”.1Pt 4:10

Why not simply do as Peter himself says?

 

[Abu]

eazyduzit #356
Why can’t we just model our ministry after Peter’s example instead of our own ideas.

As Jesus personally made St Peter His Supreme Vicar, and St Peter received the first three thousand converts, those interested in following Christ should really follow him, the Rock on which Christ built His Catholic Church.

As we all know the Holy Spirit did infuse them at Pentecost when they were understood in some twenty different languages which they were unable to speak of their own volition, and some three thousand were converted!

 

[Ron_Obvious]

Reply to post #348

What it comes down to is who or what can guarantee the final truth, seeing that the results are not yet in.

But Jesus promised he would send the Spirit to guide the Church into all truth (John 16:13) He did not make this promise to each and every person who picks up a bible and starts reading, claiming to be led by the Spirit. That mentality has led to mass division.

Yet, if I am trusting in Jesus, not the church. Then He is the final guarantee of my faith. He promised to be both the author and finisher of it. Where the cults get off is they listen to the false prophets more than the word of God.

False dichotomy. Its not, “Jesus or the Church” as you put it. Jesus is the head of His Church. To listen to the Church is to listen to Jesus. “He who hears you, hears me.” (Luke 10:16) It is serious error to separate Christ from the Church. The Church
is His body.

There is no “seat of St. Peter” in scripture, but we do know what he actually said about doing the work of ministry. “As EVERY man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God”.1Pt 4:10

**Sorry, you are simply incorrect here. Peter led the early church. Of course every man has received a gift to minister to one another. Catholics have no problem with this verse. However, Peter was given a special role. The book of Acts makes that pretty clear. He was given the keys, nobody else was (Matthew 16:18) He was told to tend the lambs and feed the sheep, no one else was. If you don’t see the chair of Peter in scripture, it is because you again are making yourself the authority in regard to scriptural interpretation.

BTW, you never really answered my question. Does your authority to accurately and authoritatively interpret scripture supercede the Catholic Church’s authority to accurately and authoritatively interpret scripture? I’d really like your answer to that question.**

 

[SteveVH]

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?

First of all, purgatory is not a requirement if one dies in a state of grace with no sin. But that doesn’t happen very often. One fellowships with God by confessing their sins and repenting; and then becoming united to him once again in the Eucharist. Jesus deals in reality. He knows that we all sin and so has provided his Church with the means of forgiving those sins in his Name that we might be reconciled with God.

I approach a holy God by faith that I have been justified by the blood of Christ according to Rm5:19

So have I, which is why I can be forgiven.

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!

Yes, it is indeed! But that doesn’t translate into once saved, always saved.

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

Really? Would you rather go to hell if you leave this life absent a perfect state of grace?

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.

Well, you missed the point completely. Read it again:

“Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”

By saying that we will not be forgiven for sinning against the Holy Spirit even in the age to come" implies that we can be forgiven from other sins in the age to come. In other words, we will carry our unforgiven sins into the next world and we must be purified from these sins before we can enter heaven.

We have much for which we will be held to account. Christ, in his mercy, allows us to be purified from our sins; from the attachments which we bring with us from this life, rather than to suffer eternal damnation. This is not a punishment. It is more like a mother scrubbing her child in a bathtub after playing in a mud puddle so that the child doesn’t get mud all over the house.

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.

Well, in the Catholic Church “Reconciliation” is a sacrament.

Why would Paul say “Christ sent me not to baptise, but to preach the gospel” if baptism was the important thing?

Paul was speaking of following personalities; those by whom they had been Baptized, rather than the Gospel. Obviously Paul did participate in Baptizing as he relates: “I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.”. (1Cor. 1:14) He was happy that they were not following him simply because he had Baptized them.

 

[LionHeart777]

I’m not familiar with the “Constitution of the Church”. Could you give me a verse for that? I assume it basically means- We claim Peter and therefore we inherit authority over all things.

You ask " foundation of what?" Well, the important quality of a foundations is that it provides stability. If it slides or sinks, the house will fall. Without a solid anchor I will be blown in a strange direction by every wind of doctrine. St. Peter, just as every other writer of scripture, warns about false teachers bringing damnable heresies. He even said “many shall follow” and all that he says is that Jesus is the “chief cornerstone” and “he that believeth on Him shall not be confounded”. He never mentions the church.

For Peter, ministry is very simple. It works “one to another” since “every man hath received the gift” 1Pt4:10. He also affirms that with God, there is no “respect of persons”. 1Pt 1:17
Moreover, he calls Jesus the "Shepherd and Bishop of your souls"1Pt 2:25. Not the Church. Why can’t we just model our ministry after Peter’s example instead of our own ideas.

Eazy,

I should have been clearer, sorry. St. Peter is the foundation of the Church that Christ built. Here I am talking about the constitution of the Church. When I said “constitution” in the phrase “constitution of the Church”, I think I meant it in the sense that the word constitution means, to quote Merriam Webster’s Online Dictionary:

“b : the structure, composition, physical makeup, or nature of something <the constitution of society” (def. 2b)

or

“the act of establishing, making, or setting up” (def. 3)

So what I mean to say by “constitution of the Church” is, I suppose, the way that Christ built (or constituted) His Church.

So when we were talking about foundations, like you asked me what my foundation was, and you said something to the extent that “the foundation for Evangelicals is…”; I was trying to be specific in asking “foundation of what?”. I’m talking about How Christ established his Church, specifically, how he made St. Peter the foundation of it (Mt. 16:18-19).

So there are many passages that talk about how Christ built His Church, but it is perhaps outside of the scope of this conversation for me to list a number of those. We were talking about 1 specifically, Mt. 18:17, then Mt. 16:18-19. These are passages related to the constitution of the Church. The passages you alluded to above about heresies and what not, with the exception of the last perhaps, do not relate to this subject (I’ll come back to Christ being the chief Cornerstone.) The Church was established before the NT was written as you know. The NT is not a Theology manual (nor does it read like one). The Church followed what Christ and the Apostles had established (essentially)—albeit the acorn now has grown into a great tree.

Now, the fact that Christ is referred to as the Rock in Scripture, and as the head Cornerstone, is complementary with the idea that St. Peter is the rock and foundation of the Church which the Rock Himself established (see the citation I gave you from St. Ambrose above in my last post.) We can discuss that more if you want, if you think they are contradictory ideas, but I’ll leave it for now.

You talked about St. Peter’s ideas on Ministry… 1 Peter 1:17, which you cited, is about judgment:

“[16] Because it is written: You shall be holy, for I am holy. [17] And if you invoke as Father him who, without respect of persons, judgeth according to every one’ s work: converse in fear during the time of your sojourning here.” (1 Pt. 16-17) (Emphasis mine)

It is not talking about how the Church is made up. The Apostles, to quote St. Clement (ca. A.D. 80), “appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers.”

(Note: we can discuss Presbyters too, but in this day the terms for “Bishop” and “Presbyter” aren’t fixed like they became by A.D. 110—as the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch testify to.)

So I am sure you would agree that there is a hierarchy to the Church Christ established, no? 3 offices are given: Bishop, Presbyter (i.e. Priest), and Deacon. As you would agree:

“[11] And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors, [12] For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:” (Eph. 4:11)

I believe if you take a look at what the Apostles did; the set up Monarchical Bishops in various places; you would have a clearer picture. I can follow up evidence for that in a separate post.

–Nick

 

[LionHeart777]

Follow up post:

First Bishops:

The office is described in 1 Tim. 3:1-2, Titus 1:7; and yet St. Peter, when addressing his audience in his first Epistle, refers to Christ as “the shepherd and bishop of your souls.” (1 Pt. 2:25)

Incidentally, notice here that there is no contradiction between churchmen being referred to as Bishops (and shepherds elsewhere – at least implicitly), and Christ being referred to as a Shepherd and a Bishop.

Interestingly, Sts. Timothy and Titus (to whom St. Paul wrote to above) were Bishops too. Besides the NT evidence, we learn this from Eusebius of Caesarea, the first Church historian (4th century):

“Timothy, so it is recorded, was the first to receive the episcopate of the parish in Ephesus, Titus of the churches in Crete.” (“History of the Church”, Book 3:4:6)

There is Ephesus and Crete. Here is the situation in Rome. St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon, a contemporary of St. Polycarp (a disciple of St. John) tells us (ca. A.D. 189):

“2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

1. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate…” (Against Heresies, Book 3:3:2-3)

St. Irenaeus also tells how St. John appointed St. Polycarp as the first Bishop of Smyrna (mentioned in Revelation):

“4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true.” (Ibid. , ch. 4)

And one could go on with Antioch, Alexandria, etc.

 

[eazyduzit]

Reply to 361
The way I see Christ building His church is just as Peter said, we are all living stones, building up a spiritual house. We all have a revelation from God as Peterdid.

Of course, agree that we have apostles, bishops, deacons, elders. This is a abuntly clear. It is not at all clear that we have or need a separate priesthood. Notice that it is clear that there is a priesthood of all. Not only explained by Peter, but confirmed by Jesus in Revelation. Randy uses Rm 15:16 to prove priesthood, but as I pointed out, the early versions including the Vulgate do not use the word “priest” or “sacerdot” because it is not what the text means. I do not think Jerome was confused about it. However, this fell on deaf ears. what I am saying is that a separate priesthood is not clear nor is the need for it since it is clear, as I said, that believers have " been perfected for ever" by the blood of Christ under his high priesthood. Also I pointed out that Heb 4 thus commands us to rest from any effort to add to it or complete Christ’s work .

God bless and I will finish this later.

 

[LionHeart777]

Reply to 361
The way I see Christ building His church is just as Peter said, we are all living stones, building up a spiritual house. We all have a revelation from God as Peterdid.

Of course, agree that we have apostles, bishops, deacons, elders. This is a abuntly clear. It is not at all clear that we have or need a separate priesthood. Notice that it is clear that there is a priesthood of all. Not only explained by Peter, but confirmed by Jesus in Revelation. Randy uses Rm 15:16 to prove priesthood, but as I pointed out, the early versions including the Vulgate do not use the word “priest” or “sacerdot” because it is not what the text means. I do not think Jerome was confused about it. However, this fell on deaf ears. what I am saying is that a separate priesthood is not clear nor is the need for it since it is clear, as I said, that believers have " been perfected for ever" by the blood of Christ under his high priesthood. Also I pointed out that Heb 4 thus commands us to rest from any effort to add to it or complete Christ’s work .

God bless and I will finish this later.

Eazy,

I’m on my lunch break here, but I wanted to respond to your first sentence w/ a couple of questions on your view. In Catholic Theology, 1 Peter 2:5 (which you alluded to) fits into the whole conception/teaching of the Church; which includes the Church being the Mystical Body of Christ. In Catholic Theology too, as you know, there is the concept of a priesthood of all believers that exists alongside a ministerial priesthood; as I pointed out earlier, this was in effect in the OT too.

But looking at 1 Peter 2:5, how do you fit that together with Ephesians 2:20?

Also, I had worked out a non exhaustive post to kind of back up what I said about looking at what St. Peter and the other Apostles actually did in history. I will post it as a follow up but it can be kind of an addendum; I didn’t want you to feel compelled to respond, but at the same time am willing to clear up or explain anything I wrote.

Thanks,

Nick

 

[LionHeart777]

Here is said “addendum”:

First Bishops:

The office is described in 1 Tim. 3:1-2, Titus 1:7; and yet St. Peter, when addressing his audience in his first Epistle, refers to Christ as “the shepherd and bishop of your souls.” (1 Pt. 2:25)

Incidentally, notice here that there is no contradiction between churchmen being referred to as Bishops (and shepherds elsewhere – at least implicitly), and Christ being referred to as a Shepherd and a Bishop.

Interestingly, Sts. Timothy and Titus (to whom St. Paul wrote to above about the office of a Bishop) were Bishops too. Besides the NT evidence, we learn this from Eusebius of Caesarea, the first Church historian (4th century):

“Timothy, so it is recorded, was the first to receive the episcopate of the parish in Ephesus, Titus of the churches in Crete.” (“History of the Church”, Book 3:4:6)

There is Ephesus and Crete. Here is the situation in Rome. St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon, a contemporary of St. Polycarp (a disciple of St. John) tells us (ca. A.D. 189):

“2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

1. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate…” (Against Heresies, Book 3:3:2-3)

St. Irenaeus also tells how St. John appointed St. Polycarp as the first Bishop of Smyrna (mentioned in Revelation):

“4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true.” (Ibid. , ch. 4)

The fact that St. John made St. Polycarp (his disciple) the first Monarchical Bishop in Smyrna, besides being established by the writings of the Early Church Fathers, is also, to my understanding, seen in Apocalypse (Revelation):

“And to the angel of the church of Smyrna write…” (Rev. 2:8)

And one could go on with Antioch, where we know that St. Peter ordained St. Evodius as the first Bishop, and Alexandria, where St. Peter sent St. Mark to, etc.

Also just a side note: when Catholics refer to “churches”, as in the “the church of Smyrna” (Rev. 2:8), what is meant is what we call “particular churches”, as opposed to the Universal (Greek: Katholikos) Church, as found, for example, in Mt. 16:18-19, Mt. 18, 1 Tim. 3:15)

 

[Abu]

eazyduzit #362
It is not at all clear that we have or need a separate priesthood.

Then it is time to become clear on what Jesus instituted.

A lack of what Jesus actually said and did is overcome by actually following His words and actions as recorded in the Sacred Scriptures in Luke 22:
17 Then, taking a cup, he gave thanks and said, ‘Take this and share it among you,
18 because from now on, I tell you, I shall never again drink wine until the kingdom of God comes.’
19 Then he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.’
20 He did the same with the cup after supper, and said, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood poured out for you.

Thus the Son of God made His Apostles priests to celebrate His Holy Sacrifice of the Mass by commanding and enabling them to change the bread and wine into His Body and Blood. Thus it is crystal clear that we do have the priesthood instituted by Christ Himself, and it is a grave error to imagine that there is no “need” for what Christ mandated.

Of course where there is no valid priesthood, there is no Eucharist.

 

[eazyduzit]

Then it is time to become clear on what Jesus instituted.

A lack of what Jesus actually said and did is overcome by actually following His words and actions as recorded in the Sacred Scriptures in Luke 22:
17 Then, taking a cup, he gave thanks and said, ‘Take this and share it among you,
18 because from now on, I tell you, I shall never again drink wine until the kingdom of God comes.’
19 Then he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.’
20 He did the same with the cup after supper, and said, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood poured out for you.

Thus the Son of God made His Apostles priests to celebrate His Holy Sacrifice of the Mass by commanding and enabling them to change the bread and wine into His Body and Blood. Thus it is crystal clear that we do have the priesthood instituted by Christ Himself, and it is a grave error to imagine that there is no “need” for what Christ mandated.

Thanks for trying to add some clarity for me.

First, notice that in the consecration, the priest adds the word"become" . If what Jesus said was clear, then we should not need to add something that is not in the text. Adding words can change or shade meanings.
Second, what Jesus was doing was celebrating a Seder feast. No priest is required to do this, but only the head of the family. It makes no sense to be more restricted in the new Covenant.

Third, in Acts CH.2 it says the “broke bread from house to house”. Every family could break bread together. Why not today?

Forth, in Jn 14:12 Jesus says “Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also”.
So to say that only a catholic priest can do the things that Jesus did clearly violates what Jesus said.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thanks for trying to add some clarity for me.

First, notice that in the consecration, the priest adds the word"become" . If what Jesus said was clear, then we should not need to add something that is not in the text. Adding words can change or shade meanings.

The priest does not add the word “become” at the consecration. He says:

Priest:

TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND EAT OF IT,

FOR THIS IS MY BODY,

WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU.

Priest:

TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT,

FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD,

THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT,

WHICH WILL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR MANY

FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.

DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.

 

[eazyduzit]

Eazy,

I’m on my lunch break here, but I wanted to respond to your first sentence w/ a couple of questions on your view. In Catholic Theology, 1 Peter 2:5 (which you alluded to) fits into the whole conception/teaching of the Church; which includes the Church being the Mystical Body of Christ. In Catholic Theology too, as you know, there is the concept of a priesthood of all believers that exists alongside a ministerial priesthood; as I pointed out earlier, this was in effect in the OT too.

But looking at 1 Peter 2:5, how do you fit that together with Ephesians 2:20?

Also, I had worked out a non exhaustive post to kind of back up what I said about looking at what St. Peter and the other Apostles actually did in history. I will post it as a follow up but it can be kind of an addendum; I didn’t want you to feel compelled to respond, but at the same time am willing to clear up or explain anything I wrote.

Thanks,

Nick

I don’t see much difference in the verses. They both acknowledge Jesus as the chief cornerstone. In both, we are all stones in the spiritual house. The apostles and prophets come first, but Peter is not singled out in either one. No problem for me.

 

[eazyduzit]

The priest does not add the word “become” at the consecration. He says:

Priest:

TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND EAT OF IT,

FOR THIS IS MY BODY,

WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU.

Priest:

TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT,

FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD,

THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT,

WHICH WILL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR MANY

FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.

DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.

Sorry for my poor memory. I don’t have a text of the mass with me. So there is no place were it is said “let this bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ”?

 

[SteveVH]

Sorry for my poor memory. I don’t have a text of the mass with me. So there is no place were it is said “let this bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ”?

Eucharistic Prayer #1

Be pleased, O God, we pray, to bless, acknowledge, and approve this offering in every respect; make it spiritual and acceptable, so that it may become for us the Body and Blood of your most beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.

This is not adding to the words of Christ. It is a prayer of the priest. It becomes the body and blood by the pronouncement of the words of Christ…“This is my body… This is my blood…”.

Peace.

Steve

 

[SyroMalankara]

Second, what Jesus was doing was celebrating a Seder feast. No priest is required to do this, but only the head of the family. It makes no sense to be more restricted in the new Covenant.

The Bishop is the head of the Spiritual family, the priest his delegate head. Thus, we have the Seder transformed.

Third, in Acts CH.2 it says the “broke bread from house to house”. Every family could break bread together. Why not today?

Each parish is the spiritual household of the family.

Forth, in Jn 14:12 Jesus says “Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also”.
So to say that only a catholic priest can do the things that Jesus did clearly violates what Jesus said.

Not exactly. Everyone in the family isn’t called to take on every role. Some will preach, some will heal, some will minister to the poor, some will minister to widows, prisoners and orphans. Each member of the family can do these works - these sacrifices - that Christ did on earth. The Church family, especially our spiritual fathers, can rightly order these ministries, according to what Christ ordered for the good of the family.

 

[Erich]

“Ask, and it will be given you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you. For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who searches finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be opened. Is there anyone among you who, if your child asks for bread, will give a stone? Or if the child asks for a fish, will give a snake? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!”

That sounds very much like a guarantee to me. I asked of the Lord to reveal His truth to me and I believe with all my heart that I have received.

If one takes this to mean that anyone asking for a proper interpretation will receive one from God—and that is exactly how most Protestants understand the assistance of the Holy Spirit to work—then the multiplicity of interpretations, even among Protestants, should give people a gnawing suspicion that the Holy Spirit has not been doing his job very well.

I’m not here to try to prove that someone is wrong but this is just how I see it and what works for me. But maybe I will learn something helpful and have a better understanding of WHY we have differences.

We have differences because some folks believe that all they have to do is ask God for a proper interpretation and they will receive one… and those same folks don’t have a practical way of resolving their differences with others who also believe that all they have to do is ask God for a proper interpretation and receive a different one.

From this link:

If Protestantism is true**, There’s no way to know whether you’re assenting to divine revelation or to mere human opinion about divine revelation.**
Protestants and Catholics both believe that God has revealed himself to man over the course of human history, culminating in his ultimate self-revelation in Jesus Christ. But whereas Catholics believe that Christ founded a visible Church—which subsists in the Catholic Church—and has protected its doctrines from error, Protestants reject the notion of ecclesial infallibility, maintaining that no person, church, or denomination has been preserved from error in its teachings. Which means that anyone could be wrong, and no person or institution can be trusted with speaking the truth of divine revelation without error.
…
*If Protestantism is true, *all are fallible. So the Protestant must rely on his own judgment above that of his church. And the orthodoxy of the church itself is judged against his interpretation of the Bible. Thus is becomes impossible to distinguish between what divine revelation actually is versus what a fallible human being thinks it is.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sorry for my poor memory. I don’t have a text of the mass with me. So there is no place were it is said “let this bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ”?

Eucharistic Prayer #1

Be pleased, O God, we pray, to bless, acknowledge, and approve this offering in every respect; make it spiritual and acceptable, so that it may become for us the Body and Blood of your most beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.

This is not adding to the words of Christ. It is a prayer of the priest. It becomes the body and blood by the pronouncement of the words of Christ…“This is my body… This is my blood…”.

Peace.

Steve

From Eucharistic Prayer IV:

Therefore, O Lord, we pray:
may this same Holy Spirit
graciously sanctify these offerings,
He joins his hands
and makes the Sign of the Cross once over the bread and chalice together, saying:
that they may become
the Body and Ñ Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ
He joins his hands.
for the celebration of this great mystery,
which he himself left us
as an eternal covenant.

But at the moment of consecration, the words are always the same:

he took bread, blessed and broke it,
and gave it to his disciples, saying:

Take this, all of you, and eat of it,
for this is my Body,
which will be given up for you.

In a similar way,
taking the chalice filled with the fruit of the vine,
he gave thanks,
and gave the chalice to his disciples, saying:

Take this, all of you, and drink from it,
for this is the chalice of my Blood,
the Blood of the new and eternal covenant,
which will be poured out for you and for many
for the forgiveness of sins.
Do this in memory of me