Posted on 01/23/2008 12:25:36 PM PST by Gamecock
***No. It’s half the truth. Christ is a priest forever. Forever. That doesn’t mean one-time over and done with..it means the condition of his priesthood lasts for all time—once for all.***
I was citing scripture:
For by one offering he has PERFECTED FOREVER those who are being sanctified. ~ Hebrews 10:14
Christ is priest forever. True.
Them being sanctified are already perfected forever by that one offering. True.
It is Rome that has the half truth.
For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins.
And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before,
This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them, then He adds, Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more. Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.
One offering by ONE priest that perfected forever the holy ones. There is NOW no longer an offering for sin.
Rome is wrong.
Her priesthood is inferior.
Her sacerdotalism is a sin against the perfect offering of Christ.
Christ no longer works to atone sin: he SITS.
Let Jesus get off the cross.
Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, and having a High Priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
As Paul says, I know nothing against myself. My King and Priest has declared me perfect forever. It is he who stand at the Mercy Seat on my behalf and declares: This one has been perfected forever.
Therefore, Lord Calvinus may boldly enter the Holiest to offer up his own sacrifices, not for sin, of which I have no consciousness, but of other things. I’m sorry Catholics are missing the boat, but you will have an eternity to catch up when you figure out you not longer need a Pope.
Claud, on the other hand, with fear and trembling allows the Holiest to boldly enter him.
"Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?" - 1 Cor 10
***Therefore, Lord Calvinus may boldly enter the Holiest to offer up his own sacrifices,
Claud, on the other hand, with fear and trembling allows the Holiest to boldly enter him.***
To each his own. I suppose that if you don’t think you are a priest, then you have no right to be in the temple of God and we both know that those who profane the Holiest were killed by God.
And, even though it is a fearful thing to be in the hands of a living God, we are still encouraged to boldness....
Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, and having a High Priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
Like I said, you Catholics will have an eternity to play catchup.
Point taken. It appeared that you were saying that the decision was already made and that calling the Apostolic See was an unnecessary formality. That doesn't seem to be the case. Thus, it seems the truth has fallen somewhere in between. After some reading because of your post, I have learned something new. Thanks, I will be more careful using that.
Scholars indeed are not infallible. Look to many of the Catholic writings on Luther, you will find people willing to fabricate things from whole cloth, and then they are echoed from the 1500s until now, and quoted as near scripture! Not saying that any side is worse than the others, but that is why we stick to the original sources as much as we possibly can.
I agree, and I apologize for not being more careful. I do not read Latin and did not know enough of the particular history behind the condemnation of Pelagius. I assumed that those well known and oft-quoted words were his actual words. As you have said, both sides have quoted things out of context. On another site, someone quoted part of the old Catechism to state that the Church considered the Bible a dead letter. Naturally, out of context, but you can imagine the reaction to that.
As for 4th century position of the Pope, that is still sitting on the basis of the old Imperial seat of power (Chalcedon canon 28). What has happened is the accumulation of more erroneous traditions piled on top of ceremony and pomp. All that is required for something to be messed up is time and people.
Canon 28 doesn't tell us the position of the Pope rests on the Imperial seat of power - it adds Constantinople as an Apostolic See, none of which are superior to Rome. This canon was not accepted by Rome - "Apostolic See" suggests that the Apostles established them and there were no custom of apostlic establishments in Constantinople prior to 300 AD. The apostle Andrew is a late addition that magically appears to justify the term.
No matter what it "rests on", quite frankly, the point is the people of the time realized that the Bishop of Rome had a particular pride of place. Now, whether that is attributed to Matthew 16 or the capital of the Imperial Empire, I don't see that as a major concern, since Jesus didn't give specific instructions to the Apostles on running ecclesiastical governmental affairs once He ascended. It appears that the Church, though, believed that what happened was indeed being sanctioned from above, and the common person believed that, as well.
I wonder what would have happened if the Apostolic See DISAGREED with the synods. What happened historically in such cases, such as the so-called "Robber Council"?
Regards
But oooohhhhh how rich is that quote you posted!!!
Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, and having a High Priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.What a marvelous verse....so pregnant with liturgical meaning!
Could be, but making divination based on numerology rather than a coherent, seamless reading of the entirety of Scripture, seems rather dangerous. The basic point is that the concept of office is Biblical. The fact that the Apostolic office grew from the original 12 is also biblical.
YOU:
***The pope, when speaking ex cathedra is guided by the Holy spirit, he doesnt need to have that interpreted, unless you doubt the Holy Spirit.***
Huh. You mean Im guided by the Holy Spirit more than the Pope. Oh, well, I guess part time guidance is better than none.
BTW, your logic doesnt follow (if it has not already been pointed out): John, in writing his Gospel, was guided by the Holy Spirit.
Should I, then,...
a). conclude that John doesnt need interpretation using your logic, making the Pope irrelevant.
b). conclude that the Pope needs interpretation opening up every Catholic to the charge they make against Protestants: Every Catholic his own pope.
You make the call, but it doesnt look good if you look to the Pope.
ME: again, note, when the pope speaks AS THE SUPREME TEACHING AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH, he had the God given charism of infallibility from the Holy Spirit, not in everyday conversation or privately held opinions.
We are not talking about you, or St John either, we are talking about the historically established papacy from peter to benedict.
YOU:
***The pope, when speaking ex cathedra is guided by the Holy spirit, he doesnt need to have that interpreted, unless you doubt the Holy Spirit.***
Huh. You mean Im guided by the Holy Spirit more than the Pope. Oh, well, I guess part time guidance is better than none.
BTW, your logic doesnt follow (if it has not already been pointed out): John, in writing his Gospel, was guided by the Holy Spirit.
Should I, then,...
a). conclude that John doesnt need interpretation using your logic, making the Pope irrelevant.
b). conclude that the Pope needs interpretation opening up every Catholic to the charge they make against Protestants: Every Catholic his own pope.
You make the call, but it doesnt look good if you look to the Pope.
ME: again, note, when the pope speaks AS THE SUPREME TEACHING AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH on maters of faith or morals, he had the God given charism of infallibility from the Holy Spirit, not in everyday conversation or privately held opinions.
We are not talking about you, or St John either, we are talking about the historically established papacy from peter to benedict.
YOU:
***The pope, when speaking ex cathedra is guided by the Holy spirit, he doesnt need to have that interpreted, unless you doubt the Holy Spirit.***
Huh. You mean Im guided by the Holy Spirit more than the Pope. Oh, well, I guess part time guidance is better than none.
BTW, your logic doesnt follow (if it has not already been pointed out): John, in writing his Gospel, was guided by the Holy Spirit.
Should I, then,...
a). conclude that John doesnt need interpretation using your logic, making the Pope irrelevant.
b). conclude that the Pope needs interpretation opening up every Catholic to the charge they make against Protestants: Every Catholic his own pope.
You make the call, but it doesnt look good if you look to the Pope.
ME: again, note, when the pope speaks AS THE SUPREME TEACHING AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH on maters of faith or morals, he has the God given charism of infallibility from the Holy Spirit, not in everyday conversation or privately held opinions.
We are not talking about you, or St John either, we are talking about the historically established papacy from peter to benedict.
I heard you the first time. ;^)
If we say, 'We are without sin,' we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. -- 1 John 1:8
YOU:
I heard you the first time. ;^)
ME: yet you attempted to twist the meaning of the words that are plain and straight forward? why?
Perhaps you weren’t typing Excarchiros.
Keep your inferior priesthood if you must. I am of the order of Christ, a part of a royal priesthood. If you think that some invented Petrine order is the OT fulfillment, then I won't try to stop you.
AMEN!
If I've learned anything from these discussions on FR, it is this...
Some people think their own obedience saves them, and some people know it is Christ's obedience that saves anyone.
Some people think their own good works will save them; and some people know that the only work that saves is Christ's work on the cross.
Some people think their own righteousness will save them; and some people know only Christ's righteousness saves the fallen sinner.
Some people think they choose to believe and move toward God; and some people know it is God who does the choosing and the Holy Spirit who does the moving.
Some people think their own sacrifices please God; and some people know the only sacrifice that means anything is that of Jesus Christ alone.
All of us sin every day of our lives. But Christ has paid for the sins of His sheep. Every one of them.
That fact should and does induce obedience, gratitude and worship of the Triune God from whom all blessings flow.
As the Holy Spirit leads us in sanctification, we will hate our sins more and sin less and less, by the grace of God alone.
But even as sinners, we still have been forgiven.
Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus" -- Ephesians 2:4-6"But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
Then don't say you "aren't conscious of sin" and expect Christians who know the Scriptures to believe you.
“The fact that the Apostolic office grew from the original 12 is also biblical.”
Don’t be so quick to agree. Judas Iscariot was one of the original twelve and the office did not grow out of them but out of the gift to the churches in Ephesians 4 after His resurrection.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.