Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

Progressive Theology ^ | July 07

[P-Marlowe]

A Mass can be invalid for a number of reasons (we presuppose that the priest has been validly ordained): 1) because of a defect in the matter, for example, using sweet rolls instead of bread made only from wheat flour and water;

[Dr. Eckleburg]

"Another Christ."

No wonder children are cowered into keeping silent about their abuse at the hands of men who are "another Christ."

You'd think the RCs would be a bit embarrassed by the outright blasphemy of the phrase "priests are another Christ." But no, instead they blindly defend the lie.

[DragoonEnNoir]

Thank you for the clarification Petrosius.

Examine the role of the Catholic priesthood though. If they perform the functions of a hiereus (being set apart from the laity, administering sacrifices, acting as an intercessor between man and God), then I would argue that it is the Catholic priesthood that has confused the role of the presbuteros with that of the hiereus.

In the Mass, acting in persona Cristi, the RC priest is performing a sacrifice. A sacrifice even though we are told; He (Christ) has appeared once for all to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself
(He9:26)

The study of scripture is always useful and rewarding, but it is not only with our minds that we are to worship our Lord. The use of the term priest by the RC priesthood may derive from a different linguistic root, but the application of their role has not only drifted into un-scriptural areas, but easily lends itself to confusion on the part of lay members. The very concept of a laity in this regard is questionable, since I would argue that in a NT context, all followers of the Way should be 'priests'.

There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus
(1 Tim 2:5)

[fortheDeclaration]

Please explain how he could die under the New Testament when the Old had yet to be fullfilled? The Temple was not yet destroyed, Christ had not yet risen, the Devil had not yet been confronted in Hell. what is clear from mark 16:16 is that both are necessary however baptism will not save apostates. the reason st john the forerunner is in the Bible is the need for both baptisms.

The curtain in the Temple had been ripped from top to bottom showing that access to God no longer was limited to a born priesthood.

Christ finished the requirements of the Law by his death and the thief died after Christ.

Apollos was preaching the Baptism of John the Baptist and was corrected by Aquilla and Priscla in Acts 18.

It was the wrong Baptism.

The Christian Baptism is found in Mat.28:19.

Spiritual baptism (which is what identifies the believer with Christ spiritually) is found in 1Cor.12:13).

Water Baptism is only a symbol of that spiritual baptism.

[DragoonEnNoir]

Thanks Kosta,

I'll respond more in depth later, but I suggest you think over your answers more carefully before you write. I understand your desire to protect 'your Church', but truth is more important. The source of the former is in man, the source of the latter is God.

When I speak of unity among a group of non-Catholic believers, I refer not to monotheism, but to the Apostles Creed. Instead of jumping to prejudicial conclusions, I would suggest you ask in future which is meant.

I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth: And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord: Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary: Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell: The third day he rose again from the dead: He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty: From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead: I believe in the Holy Ghost: I believe in the holy catholic church:( catholic, not Catholic) the communion of saints: The forgiveness of sins: The resurrection of the body: And the life everlasting. Amen.

There are no "core" Catholic beliefs they all share and then have a plethora of "other beliefs" they don't.

There most certainly is. It is often referred to as Dogma vs Doctrine. As I assume you're aware, Doctrine contains the propositions of Faith that all Catholics are expected to accept. Dogma contains those doctrines that have been defined by Pope or Council or Tradition, and is both changeable and not required of all Catholic believes.

You rest on Church tradition, but might I remind you to look over what Christ said of the Pharisees and teachers of the law. They too were proud and adamant in their traditions. Did Christ praise this, or did he condemn it?

[fortheDeclaration]

Do they truly not see how this mumbo-jumbo is the antithesis of the Gospel? It's wizardry; not Christ risen.

Amen.

[fortheDeclaration]

The RCC fears a man's conscience, instead coralling it with heavy gold chains and fences made with the stumblingblocks of idols.

Amen.

[kawaii]

Kinda prefer the older version (circa 381):

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made:

Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made man; And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried;

sans a few other words here

And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures;

And ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father;

And He shall come again with glory to judge the quick and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spake by the Prophets;

And we believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. (Yours has communion of saints can you clarify the meaning of that?)

We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.

We look for the Resurrection of the dead,

And the Life of the world to come. Amen.

[kawaii]

The curtain in the Temple had been ripped from top to bottom showing that access to God no longer was limited to a born priesthood.

Christ finished the requirements of the Law by his death and the thief died after Christ.

2 errors here. 1, the Levite priesthood wasn't simply mortal they were all of the same family, it was inherited, that is what changed, not the need for a priesthood. 2, If the prophecies of the ressurection had not been fullfilled there is now way Christ could be considered the messiah testified to in the Old Testament. Also the only scripture i can find which mentions the repentant thief is Luke which is abiguous as to when the good thief died.

[Petrosius]

If you remember, Paul was struck blind; he saw or witness nothing. While the aural revelation was a great gift, he was not a witness to our Lord’s physical Resurrection.

[Petrosius]

Matthias was chosen not simply by lot. Of the many disciples, he chosen first with Joseph. Granted that then the choice between the two of them was then made by lot. While this was indeed an extraordinary method to make this choice, there is nothing in the Bible to suggest that Matthias was not truly ordained as the successor to Judas.

[fortheDeclaration]

2 errors here. 1, the Levite priesthood wasn't simply mortal they were all of the same family, it was inherited, that is what changed, not the need for a priesthood.

No, there is no need for any priesthood, Levitical or Aaronic. (Heb.7-9).

All believers are now Priests (1Pe.2:5)

Our High Priest is Christ Himself (Heb.10)

2, If the prophecies of the ressurection had not been fullfilled there is now way Christ could be considered the messiah testified to in the Old Testament.

Yes, but the Resurrection was going to happen, thus the rending of the Temple curtain from top to bottom.

Also the only scripture i can find which mentions the repentant thief is Luke which is abiguous as to when the good thief died.

Nothing ambiguous about it.

John 19 described the fact that the soldiers broke the legs of the thieves to hasten their deaths, but when they came to Christ they didn't have to,seeing He was already dead.

That is one of the soldiers stuck the spear into him (Jn.19:32-34)

[kawaii]

you’re ignoring that John never spoke of any theives repenting.

[xzins]

Php 4:1 Therefore, my brothers, you whom I love and long for, my joy and crown, that is how you should stand firm in the Lord, dear friends! 2 I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to agree with each other in the Lord. 3 Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow, help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

The entire passage definitely puts Clement in Philippi. He is to help the loyal yokefellow (Silas?) with these 2 women OR he contended alongside Paul with these women. In either case, his presence in Philippi is necessary.

Eason's Bible Dictionary: a Christian of Philippi, Paul's "fellow-labourer," whose name he mentions as "in the book of life" (Phil 4:3). It was an opinion of ancient writers that he was the Clement of Rome whose name is well known in church history, and that he was the author of an Epistle to the Corinthians, the only known manuscript of which is appended to the Alexandrian Codex, now in the British Museum. It is of some historical interest, and has given rise to much discussion among critics. It makes distinct reference to Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians.

[kawaii]

we hold to Christ being the high priest btw. actually from 1 peter 2:5 i can see that there is a house and a priesthood i do not see where everyone in the house is automatically in the priesthood, Hebrews seems to specifically do away with the Levitical priesthood but does not seem to do away with priesthood at all but rather change it.

[P-Marlowe]

If you remember, Paul was struck blind; he saw or witness nothing. While the aural revelation was a great gift, he was not a witness to our Lord’s physical Resurrection.

Then Paul was a liar:

Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord. (1 Corinthians 9:1-2 KJV)

[Claud]

help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

There's a couple ways to read that though. At least in English-I can't speak to the Greek. There's "help these women...[and help] Clement and the rest of these fellow workers"

OR

There's "help these women who have contended at my side along with [to name some other people who have contended at my side] Clement and the rest of my fellow workers."

If the latter, then he didn't necessarily have to be in Phillippi. I'll do some more homework on it though...you've given me some interesting leads.

[fortheDeclaration]

we hold to Christ being the high priest btw. actually from 1 peter 2:5 i can see that there is a house and a priesthood i do not see where everyone in the house is automatically in the priesthood, Hebrews seems to specifically do away with the Levitical priesthood but does not seem to do away with priesthood at all but rather change it.

The High Priest is now Christ.

So the Aaronic one is done away with.

Christ is Prophet, Priest and King.

When He returns He will return as King.

Regarding 1Pe., Peter is addressing individual Christians as being Priests, thus having direct access to God.

[Uncle Chip]

A "defect in the matter?" A "defect in the form?" How can they say with a straight face that "the correct words must be used" in order for the alchemy of transubstantiation to transpire? Do they truly not see how this mumbo-jumbo is the antithesis of the Gospel? It's wizardry; not Christ risen.

Let us also not forget under whose Papal reign this doctrine of the Mass, aka Transubstantiation, was conciliarily formalized --- none other than Pope Innocent III, the Pope with more "innocent" blood on his hands than all Roman Emperors put together.

Apparently the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass, defined during his reign, was not even sufficient for his Crusaders to enter heaven. They had to be granted special indulgences toward their eternal reward in return for the bloody and innocent sacrifices that they performed.

[kawaii]

saying that 1 peter 2 calls every Christian a priest is intellectual dishonest, the comma would be relaced with “ of” or a semi colon.

and that’s only examining the English text, i suspect the greek drives this home even more.