You can't have it both ways.

[PRmerger]

A. Could you provide a NT verse that promotes a priesthood as understood by the CC?

I won’t.

Not until someone here, *anyone, *shows me why we have to provide a NT verse for any of the teachings of the Apostles.

A verse in Scripture would be great!

 

[simspt]

No Christian is ever identified as a Priest in the NT to my knowledge. This fact is obscured by some NT translations where the term presbyteros (“presbyter, elder”) is rendered as “priest”. This word should be reserved for the translation for hiereus (Latin sacerdos)
Verbum posted this
The meaning of “presbyteros” in the New Testament is “elder”. The elder was in charge of a community, but was not necessarily an ordained priest. As a matter of fact, many think that for decades, if not centuries, there were only bishops and no priests as we think of them today. In time, the “elders” or heads of communities, were ordained. Hence the word priest derived from “presbyteros”.

 

[joe370]

Hey Schaick…

The Gospels we know absolutely are GOD’s Words because as I have mentioned before of the prophecies fufilled.

That is a good point, and fulfilled prophecy is something that sets the bible apart from every other religious book. There are 26 other religious books that people of faith believe are divinely inspired (the Vedas, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Mahabharata, the Upanishads, the Quran, the Book of Mormon, the Tripitaka, etc.) - Of these twenty-six books, none of them, not a single one, contains any specific, fulfilled prophecies! So why was a letter of Peter, John, or the book of Hebrews, James and Revelation, rejected by some early on, if fulfilled prophecy is the sole barometer for identifying sacred scripture? Historically speaking, the CC decided what would and would not be in the bible, at a time when said books were considered spurious.

The letters are written by those we know were eyewitness followers or students of the eyewitness followers of that GOD’s Word and WORD, written to explain use of the Gospel by the various Churches. With Revelations not yet proven absolutely.

And what church in the world today, did these eyewitnesses belong to, if not the CC? Schaick,** all four Gospels are anonymous;** none of them include the author’s name. Those names are a product of tradition, and therefore you unwittingly embrace tradition. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - did not become associated with these writings until the second century. In the early centuries of Christianity, these 4 Gospels coexisted with a number of other Christian writings, many of which have not been preserved, and it was the Synod of Carthage of the Catholic Church, that defined the present twenty-seven New Testament books, including the four Gospels, as the canon of the New Testament in the year 397.

History, archeological digs are helping to prove the accuracy of Scripture-doesn’t prove it is from GOD though.

Very true.

*“are to be ignored as nothing more than fallible tradition”/I]

Only if it is preaching a different Gospel and demanding us to do or believe something different is required for our salvation.*

Show me the chain of transmission and proof that the universal Church that Jesus built had a Pope instead of local Overseers/Bishops, an infallible Pope, worshipped the Eucharist, followed the Mary Dogmas, that we are requird to pay for our way out of pergutory or sins through indulgences, etc.

Again, the title pope, was a name adopted by both the EOC and the CC, to identify a bishop. What’s the big deal? Again, the bishop of Rome is not infallible. The fallible CC leaders can teach infallibly regarding the teachings of JC because the infallible holy spirit is mystically guiding her into all truth until the end of time. Who, in your mind can infallibly interpret the infallible bible, and discern truth from lies? If n one then we are simply left with an infallible collection of books with no means to discern truth when it comes to certain things like the Eucharist. You don’t believe that do you?

The disciples of the Apostles, eyewitnesses, believed in the Eucharist. Should I take your word for or theirs? Mary was believed to be sinless by the same people that defined the bible. The bible supports purgatory and paying our way out of purgatory is a silly thing to suggest.

 

[joe370]

Schaick…

Who has the authority to decide what it’s original intention was/is meant to be, when people disagree?
Ask your self why would GOD leave us a writting? The Old Testament being the history of man. It shows us that we need a Saviour.

Why do you keep answering my question with a question that has nothing to do with my question? The answer to your question is: God did not leave us with the writings of the bible. He left us with a church and told His fledgling church leaders to teach and to be His witnesses to the ends of the earth. Perhaps you could answer my question - maybe?

The intent GOD is for us to have a better relationship with GOD- receive salvation, walk towards righteousness.

2 Timothy 3
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

Very true.

Quote:
Do you believe that there is one interpretation of the teaching of the Eucharist?
I Havve answered this yes, with different applications.

This is my body vs this is a symbol of my body is not the same interpretation - correct?

Quote:
Says who? They disagree with you based on the same authority to which you defer - the bible, so, to them, you are the one not following “the simple basic rules of how to interpret a writing.” Who or what has the authority to settle this dispute, a dispute that the bible cannot settle?
Have you ever once thought that maybe just maybe there is no need to settle? Among Trinitarian Christins if not spelled out specifically does it need to be settled.

So your answer is: no need to know doctrinal truth?

So you do admit that oral tradition was the means by which the word was promulgated, for a period of time?
It is still GOD’s Word. Orally transmitted within one generation would not have the great chance of being distorted as if transmitted through hundreds of years.

But it could have been distorted - correct?

Of course it was not because the holy spirit was guiding the early CC into all truth.

Quote:
How would sola scriptura (the bible alone) - have worked during this period and during the period when those writings were not yet combined together as one volume?

Also, is it your contention that no one ever questioned the canonicity of one of the books of John, or Peter, or the book of Hebrews, James or Revelation, from the close of the apostolic age to the codification of the NT?
No one ever questioned the Gospel message- The writting would have to mesh with the Gospel.

Yes, some books found in our NT, were questioned, prior to the CC settling the matter once and for all, as per all scholars, protestant or otherwise. What is your answer? Have you ever once thought that maybe just maybe there was no need to settle this dispute??? If the CC did not settle this dispute, once and for all, the bible might look very different today.

Show me the chain of transmission and proof that the universal Church that Jesus built had a Pope instead of local Overseers/Bishops, an infallible Pope, worshipped the Eucharist, followed the Mary Dogmas, that we are requird to pay for our way out of pergutory or sins through indulgences, etc.
Reply With Quote

You copied and pasted this and I have already answered these questions. There is no proof that the universal Church, built by Jesus, had a Pope instead of local Overseers/Bishops, because the Pope was/is the bishop overseers of Rome. Of course the name pope, was not adopted until much later. It’s just a word referring to the bishop of Rome. Quite harmless and has nothing to do with doctrine.

Show me the chain of transmission, and proof that the universal Church that Jesus founded was one of the protestant churches?

The chain of transmission, and proof that the CC worshiped the Eucharist (my flesh is real food; my blood is real drink) - is overwhelming. I can provide citations if necessary?

 

[StTommyMore]

There are connatations with the word priest because of using a different word than what Christ and the Apostles did. If the Apostles used one word to describe the New Testament office but not another, the connatations of using the incorrect word have to be dealt with.
Catholics using the word out of its original context make connections that the Apostles and the New Testament do not.
That is why it is very relevant.

No it is not relevant, unless you would rather argue semantics than theology.

 

[joe370]

I believe I did. Can you ask a different way?

Sorry, let me try again. 2 Tim. 3:16 is used by sola scriptura advocates to prove that scripture is the inspired word of God. But how do we know that 2 Timothy 3.16 itself is inspired? This reasoning is circular and brings us right back to the question: how do you know that the bible is the only channel by which God’s truth is revealed, and how do you know that the bible contains the correct books, considering the fact that the bible does not identify what is and what is not sacred scripture? There are books that contain fulfilled prophecy that are not to be found in the bible, so that is not enough to determine what should be in the bible and what shouldn’t be in the bible.

2 Tim. 3:16 is inspired because 2 Tim. 3:16 tells me that 2 Tim. 3:16 is inspired. or, the bible is inspired because the bible tells me that the bible is inspired, is not verifiable proof that the bible is in fact inspired. It’s circular reasoning.

Paul is not here today to confirm that what he wrote to Tim was in fact what he wrote. The tradition of the CC is our only reliable witness. You simply have blind faith that Paul wrote this book to Tim. You are trusting the authority of a collection of books; you are trusting that these books are in fact self-authenticating, unless of course you can figure out a way to verify, directly through the writers of the books of the bible, that each one of these books is in fact inspired, which of course we cannot, without the tradition of the CC. I don’t know how else to explain it.

For example, the authorship of the gospel of John, is anonymous. It is identified by Early Church tradition with John the Apostle. The book of Hebrews was/is anonymous, so how do we know who wrote it and how do you know that it is in fact an inspired book, outside the CC telling us so? Again, much to my surprise, the 4 gospels were anonymous so we cannot say that Matthew Mark, Luke and John were the authors of these books and therefore eyewitnesses without embracing the tradition of the CC.

 

[joe370]

Schaick, you said:

Worshipping the Eucharist is not mentioned.

We worship Christ and we eat his flesh just as he commanded. This is a symbol of my body is not mentioned, as many would have you believe.

Matthew does not support the tradition of the Catholic hierarchy and Pope as it stands today whether you believe that Church was built on Peter, his faith or the statement that he made about Jesus.

Matthew does not support the tradition that Jesus founded any of the protestant churches. The fact that Jesus’ church, headed by the bishop of Rome, developed a hierarchy, makes perfect sense in light of how large it was becoming. The bible does not forbid it either. Matthew as well as the others, are all silent regarding sola scriptura as well, but you have no problem believing it.

The example given in Acts 15 is an easy issue. They are questioning a requirement other then what GOD/ Jesus require/mention in the Gospel message for our salvation.

Is believeing the developed doctrines essential to our salvation, a requirement? If yes then it is as the yoke mentioned in Acts 15

.

Salvation can be found through Jesus alone, as taught by the CC.

 

[guanophore]

A. Could you provide a NT verse that promotes a priesthood as understood by the CC?

None of the NT “promotes” the Catholic faith. The Catholic faith was whole and entire before any of it was written. What we see in the NT reflects our faith, but Jesus is the source of that faith.

During the last supper, Jesus commanded the Apostles “do this, in memory of me”. This is the same word that is used in the OT for the priest who made the sacrifice on behalf of the people.

Let’s be clear, though, that the NT priesthood is not the same as the Old. The OT was the shadow of things to come, with a priestly people, ministerial priests, and a High Priest. This pattern is reflected in the NT.

However, the modern English word “priest” is a contraction of the Gk. word presbyter that is found in the NT. The duties of the priest are consistent with the role of the presbyter in the NT.

 

[guanophore]

Priest and elder are not the same thing. There is a Greek word for priest. There is a Greek word for elder. They are not the same word and they certainly do not have the same function according to the Bible. If we want to look at what the Bible teaches about the universal priesthood, we have to keep our words straight.

You are exactly correct here. There is no NT equivalent for the OT priest, referred to by the term heirus. The NT ministerial priesthood is identical to that described as presbyter/elder.

However, none of these terms apply to the universal priesthood of the community, in either testament.

It is the root for priest. It is the root for Presbyterian and other words as well. It is not the same thing. Attaching a meaning to a word because a translation of that word has a similiar baseword is not going to fly.
Lets stick to the Greek. There is a word for elder. There is a word for priest. They are not the same word.

Yes, the denomination of Presbyterians took their name from the word that is also used for Catholic priests. you are right, the meaning of the “elder” in the non-Catholic community is not the same thing. You are also right that attaching meaning to a word “doesn’t fly”. Calling the leaders “elders” does not invest them with the duties and powers that were given from the Apostles.

If you can’t accept that the English word for “priest” is a contraction of the “presbyter”, then there is really no point in discussing it at all. It would be more expedient to leave you in your intractible ignorance.

Elders are not priests.  Elders are presbuteros.

When the Reformers assigned a different meaning to the term “presbuteros” than the one used by the Apostles, they lost the priesthood. They broke from the Apostolic succession of Holy Orders, so you are right again, they are not priests.

Priests are hiereus.

This is the term used to refer to the OT priesthood, which was fulfilled in Christ. This type of priesthood does not continue into the NT. All NT priests are united to the High Priesthood of Christ.

 The English word is how people are attempting to make a distinction that does not exist in Greek.

Rightly, be a peach, and try studying some history. It will become clear that all presbyters were considered NT priests up until the Reformation.

The role and function of presbuteros we can talk about.  However only by switching to a language outside of the original can the two be conflated.

Or, if you accept the facts, rather than clinging so stubbornly to misinformation, then we can also have a meaningful talk.

Those verses you speak of, do they mention specifically ‘priests’ or are you basing your statements on ST?

This is a very good question. The most specific references are the ordination of the Apostles by the footwashing, and the Holy Orders to make the sacrifice (create the anamnesis) . We understand the passages this way because we understand them through the lens of Sacred Tradition. ST embodies the faith of the Apostles, and this is what they believed and taught.

We can see this reflected in the Fathers, who write that the valid Eucharist is that which is celebrated in unity with the bishop, the successor of the Apostles, or his designee (ther presbyter).

 

[joe370]

No Christian is ever identified as a Priest in the NT to my knowledge. This fact is obscured by some NT translations where the term presbyteros (“presbyter, elder”) is rendered as “priest”. This word should be reserved for the translation for hiereus (Latin sacerdos)
Verbum posted this
The meaning of “presbyteros” in the New Testament is “elder”. The elder was in charge of a community, but was not necessarily an ordained priest. As a matter of fact, many think that for decades, if not centuries, there were only bishops and no priests as we think of them today. In time, the “elders” or heads of communities, were ordained. Hence the word priest derived from “presbyteros”.

That is because there is only one priest, Jesus Christ, and starting with the apostles, men have been sharing in that one priesthood by doing exactly as Jesus commanded. If the bread truly becomes Jesus’ flesh and blood (my flesh is real food…my blood is real drink) - then an actual sacrifice is taking place, necessitating the need for a valid priest, and just before Jesus’ death, He commanded His disciples to do as He did, in remembrance of Him. He handed the apostle’ the cup and said, drink this is my blood of the new covenant…Blood means a sacrifice is taking place. He didn’t say this is a symbol of my blood. If he did then that would change everything. Jesus is the only priest of the new covenant but, by virtue of the action of the Presbyterium, starting with the apostles, they participate in that one priesthood, in a way that the universal priesthood does not, because we were not commanded to do so. We exercise our baptismal priesthood through their ministerial participation in the one priesthood of Jesus. Malachi predicted that a pure offering would be brought to all the nations, instead of just to the nation Israel, necessitating the need for a valid priest:

*My name will be great among the nations, from the rising to the setting of the sun. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to my name, because my name will be great among the nations," says the LORD Almighty.
*

Apart from this supper, nothing else is said in the Bible to be done in Christ’s remembrance. Neither Christmas nor Easter is mentioned anywhere in the Bible as a memorial of our Lord. These are traditions embraced by all non-Catholics.

 

[guanophore]

Jesus spoke Aramaic,not Greek. Greek was used as the language to pen the NT because it was the lengua franca,which is what many forget. Bishops is synonymous with elders;hence they are priests.

Yes, the Apostles all spoke Aramaic, but there were two different words for priest, one referring to OT and one to the New. However the word used for Bishop is neither of those, but is the word for overseer (episkopos). The Episcopal denomination takes their name from this.

There are connatations with the word priest because of using a different word than what Christ and the Apostles did.

I am sure it must seem that way. You are part of a religious tradition that has been separated from the Apostolic Succession established by Christ for over 500 years. A lot has been lost over time.

If the Apostles used one word to describe the New Testament office but not another, the connatations of using the incorrect word have to be dealt with.

Is there someplace in the NT that you see a contradiction between the NT role of the presbyter and the Catholic priest?

Catholics using the word out of its original context make connections that the Apostles and the New Testament do not. That is why it is very relevant.

LOL. The context of the NT is the Catholic Church. It was written by, for, and about Catholics! It is not possible to understand it properly outside the context of the Catholic church.

Your misunderstanding on this point is a good example of what happens when one tries to derive a doctrine by gleaning it from the pages of Holy Scripture, instead of recieving it from those who were comissioned by God to transmit it. Doctrine is to be received, not extracted.

 

[guanophore]

I won’t.

Not until someone here, *anyone, *shows me why we have to provide a NT verse for any of the teachings of the Apostles.

A verse in Scripture would be great!

Good for you PR! Great answer. Wish I had thought of it.

 

[guanophore]

No Christian is ever identified as a Priest in the NT to my knowledge. This fact is obscured by some NT translations where the term presbyteros (“presbyter, elder”) is rendered as “priest”. This word should be reserved for the translation for hiereus (Latin sacerdos)

And by what authority do you become the one who decides what the church “should” render the translations of her Holy Scriptures?

Hierus is NOT equivalent to the NT ministerial priest (presbyteros).

Verbum posted this
The meaning of “presbyteros” in the New Testament is “elder”. The elder was in charge of a community, but was not necessarily an ordained priest. As a matter of fact, many think that for decades, if not centuries, there were only bishops and no priests as we think of them today. In time, the “elders” or heads of communities, were ordained. Hence the word priest derived from “presbyteros”.

Indeed the distinction of deacons and bishops was much clearer in the early centuries. Over time, the service of the elder required more and more advanced education, so that the office of the presbyter began to move away from that of the deacon.

 

[joe370]

Hey rightly…

Priest and elder are not the same thing. There is a Greek word for priest. There is a Greek word for elder. They are not the same word and they certainly do not have the same function according to the Bible. If we want to look at what the Bible teaches about the universal priesthood, we have to keep our words straight.

Rightly, I guess it really comes down to just one question: Were the apostles and their successors, meant to share in that one priesthood of Christ, as His instruments, offering His Body and Blood under the appearances of a sacrifice of bread and wine? And for me, the answer is a resounding yes. We read that the apostles offered the Eucharist (the thanksgiving) - in Jerusalem and Troas (Acts 2 and 20) - and in Corinth the sacrifice of Christians is contrasted with the sacrifices of the Temple and to the sacrifice of the pagans. (1 Cor. 10-11)

In Malachi 1:11 the last of the Old Testament prophets declares:

“From the rising of the sun to its setting, my name is great among the gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation” (Mal. 1:11).

Has this prophecy of Malachi come true? Is there everywhere in the world offered a sacrifice which is, according to the Hebrew word (minhah) an unbloody or grain offering?

Just go to Holy Mass in any Catholic Church, anywhere in the world, and you’ll find the answer is yes. You’ll see the fulfillment of that biblical prophecy:

“so that from east to west a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your name.”

What is true of the Mass today has been true since the beginning of Christianity. You should research what the early Fathers of the Church taught about the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Very compelling stuff.

 

[joe370]

Hey Guanophore…

None of the NT “promotes” the Catholic faith. The Catholic faith was whole and entire before any of it was written. What we see in the NT reflects our faith, but Jesus is the source of that faith.

Another reason why I came home to the CC.

 

[LutheranDK]

Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone/Bible Alone)

---

If you are one of those people who truly believe in the sixteen century Protestant invention, “Sola scriptura”, or scripture alone or Bible alone, then all that anyone with this belief should ever post here, to defend their position are Bible verses, right?

Wrong. Sola Scriptura does not mean “No other authority AT ALL”, but "No authority ABOVE OR EQUAL TO Scripture. Scripture’s the supreme authority given to man by God, from which all other authority is derived.

 

[joe370]

Wrong. Sola Scriptura does not mean “No other authority AT ALL”, but "No authority ABOVE OR EQUAL TO Scripture. Scripture’s the supreme authority given to man by God, from which all other authority is derived.

Who can authoritatively interpret the bible, the supreme authority, given to man, by God? It’s a simple question my friend. Is it you or one of the the Lutheran churches? Help me find the person (the church) - that can give me the correct interpretation of the bible?

 

[StTommyMore]

I am sure it must seem that way. You are part of a religious tradition that has been separated from the Apostolic Succession established by Christ for over 500 years. A lot has been lost over time.

Actually 500 years isn’t even close. Fundamentalism is not yet 200 years old. It was a Protestant reaction to modernism.

 

[schaick]

If the Eucharist is the very Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, then it is not only worthy of worship, but if it is not worshiped you commit sacrilege.

Prove to me that Jesus said to worship the Euharist.

 

[schaick]

I agree. It is appalling how people will build an entire doctrine on a fragment, or a handful of fragments, while ignoring the rest of the Bible completely. I was amazed to be told recently here on CAF by a Reformed Christian that Jesus’ teachings did not apply to Christians (except for His teaching on the cross and faith in Himself). The moral teaching was just for the Jews.

To the extent that you know them, I am sure this is true. Some of the Teachings of the Apostles were never received by modern Christian Bible Churches, so they think such doctrines were “added by Catholics”.

Can you tell me what ones? Can you show me proof?

It is your act of confining His Word to the Sacred Scripture, and trying to force Scripture into the role of authority, which it cannot fulfill. Jesus commissioned His Apostles, and gave them authority.Scripture is profitable in their exercise of authority. It cannot replace those God has appointed.

tell me and prove what the Apostles taught.

You still do not seem to make a distinction between Sacred Tradtition (the Word of God in the Church) and human traditions. Now that you have been made aware that there is a difference, you will be held accountable for your hardness of heart.
I have enevr bee

This is not the first thread I have asked to show and prove chain of transmission of a Sacred Tradition that only Catholics have access to.

Right.

The original meaning is Catholic, because it was written by, for, and about Catholics.

You can cling to this justification for creating new and different doctrines if it makes you feel righteous before God. It will change nothing. Sola Scriptura is a departure from the ONE FAITH of the Apostles.

What new doctrine do I follow that is not Biblically based- remembering that sola scriptura was what Jesus practiced- HE always turned to GOD’s Word