Pope Benedict XVI blows inside an amphora containing holy oil during a Chrism Mass inside St. Peter's Basilica at the Vatican, Thursday, April 9, 2009. The Chrism Mass marks the start of the Vatican Easter celebrations.
Posted on 04/09/2009 10:09:51 AM PDT by ELS
.
Remembering our conversation, here is a very clear catechism on the nature of Catholic Priesthood.
Thanks, ELS!
I find nothing exegetically available in the passage cited which would accommodate the sacerdotal structure the Roman Catholic Church (or Catholic Church) has developed. There exists in your organization the habit of taking statements such as this and extending them beyond their ordinary interpretations. Once done, it is simple to prove anything you wish.
That a certain or special group of men would lay claim to such “consecration”, intimating it was not intended to be the general inheritence of all believers, belies an underlying arrogance. Sorry, I am even more convinced that the priesthood is a fabrication of needy men. Nowhere following the resurrection are Priests noted as a part of the free and open Gospel of Christ. It is only when we enslave ourselves to your self-proving arguments that we find support for the trappings of Roman Catholicism. The Bible is refreshingly sending us to Christ, alone.
The arrogance you mention would be Christ's arrogance, since the consecration is His doing.
Nowhere following the resurrection are Priests noted as a part of the free and open Gospel of Christ.
The real self-proving argument at work here is sola scriptura, which is inconveniently not found in the Bible.
The consecration is indeed available to virtually all Christian men willing to donate their total selves to priesthood. You for example, could convert, go to a seminary and become a priest in the Catholic rite that will accomodate your marital status.
Au contraire, they most certainly are. They're called "elders," "presbyteroi" in the Greek, from which we get the word "priest".
Cyborg and I just found your tagline extremely creepy.
A chill runs up my spine.
***Nowhere following the resurrection are Priests noted as a part of the free and open Gospel of Christ.
Au contraire, they most certainly are. They’re called “elders,” “presbyteroi” in the Greek, from which we get the word “priest”.***
Now, now, Campion. You are going to crush some innermost fantasies of our friend. Doesn’t it make you feel bad?
Once again, Pete, you cannot follow the argument. Of course Christ does the consecration. The writer took the position that Priest’s consecrated themselves as a support for the Priesthood. I agree with you that Christ, alone, is the answer to all believers’ needs, not some organization cooked up by a bunch of bad exegetes. You’re not a part of that Vatican-driven group, are you?
The fabrication of the priesthood that you guys have concocted based upon this passage is beyond the pale. The elders were husbands of one wife (so the Vatican takes up celibacy as an appropriate understanding of this), able to teach (so the Vatican takes up transubstantiation as a an appropriate understanding of this), etc. The Catholic Church has so screwed up the normal understandings of the text that, of course, they need the traditions they have cooked up to counter the text...otherwise everyone would say, “Hey, wait a minute. That’s not what it says!”
Your agreement is badly misplaced, as I said no such thing.
"Christ, alone," is an implicit rejection of His seven Blessed Sacraments.
The answer to all believers' needs is the fullness of Christ and all that He gives us, especially including Holy Communion with Him through His Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist.
It is interesting that this was a simple identification by Timothy of the men qualified to take care of the little groups meeting in the homes. No seminary, no “ordination ceremony”, nothing like the comical parade you folks have pumped this into. The exaggeration is phenomenal, since you do it with a straight face, never noticing that you don’t even follow the text you claim to have delivered. When called on it, you retreat and say “No sola scriptura for you.” The Vatican has created its own fantasy world of reality according to “US”. We’ll see when this is over if the big hats, gold, Swiss Army, popemobiles, relics, sacerdotalism, mariolatry, genuflecting, rosaries, confession booths, masses, sacraments, (whew that’s a lot of baggage), did any good at all...or whether those who were hidden in the righteousness of Christ alone really taught the Gospel. See you at the Bema Seat.
That’s right, I forgot you brought the 5 ton dump full of the Vatican.
***The fabrication of the priesthood that you guys have concocted based upon this passage is beyond the pale. The elders were husbands of one wife (so the Vatican takes up celibacy as an appropriate understanding of this)***
The text reads that an elder can only be the husband of a single wife; plural wives are forbidden. Further, the Church understands (as St. Paul did) that when one pledges one’s life to the Church, that celibacy is often a better way so that one is not distracted and diverted by non spiritual things.
***able to teach (so the Vatican takes up transubstantiation as a an appropriate understanding of this), etc.***
Could you restate this in a less than incoherant fashion?
***The Catholic Church has so screwed up the normal understandings of the text that, of course, they need the traditions they have cooked up to counter the text...otherwise everyone would say, “Hey, wait a minute. That’s not what it says!”***
The Catholic Church (given authority by Jesus Christ Himself) is the only authorized interpreter of Scripture. Everyone else is only guessing.
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.