Posted on 04/22/2010 9:55:26 PM PDT by Salvation
This website surveys the origin and development of Roman Catholic Christianity from the period of the apostolic church, through the post-apostolic church and into the conciliar movement. Principal attention is paid to the biblical basis of both doctrine and dogma as well as the role of paradosis (i.e. handing on the truth) in the history of the Church. Particular attention is also paid to the hierarchical founding and succession of leadership throughout the centuries.
This is a set of lecture notes used since 1985 to teach the basis for key doctrines and dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church. The objectives of the course were, and are:
The course grew out of the need for the authors to continually answer questions about their faith tradition and their work. (Both authors are active members of Catholic parish communities in the Diocese of Richmond, Virginia. Dr. Robert Schihl was a Professor and Associate Dean of the School of Communication and the Arts at Regent University. Paul Flanagan is a consultant specializing in preparing people for technology based changes.) At the time these notes were first prepared, the authors were spending time in their faith community answering questions about their Protestant Evangelical workplaces (Mr. Flanagan was then a senior executive at the Christian Broadcasting Network), and time in their workplaces answering similar questions about their Roman Catholic faith community. These notes are the result of more than a decade of facilitating dialogue among those who wish to learn more about what the Roman Catholic Church teaches and why.
Opportunities of Grace: The Eucharist: The Lord's Supper
Roman Catholic Christians share with most Christians the faith that Jesus Christ, on the night he was betrayed, ate a final or last supper with his Apostles. This final meal was also the celebration of the Jewish Passover or Feast of the Unleavened Bread which commemorated the passing over of the Jews from the death in slavery to the Egyptians to life in the Promised Land.
Christians differ in the meaning this Last Supper has to them and the Church today. Catholic Christians together with other historical Christian Churches (e.g., Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Christians, Lutherans, Anglicans and some Episcopalians, etc.) believe the literal words of Jesus - that the bread and wine are truly his body and blood. Other later Christian Churches profess a mere symbolic meaning to the words of Jesus.
The faith of the Catholic Church is based on both a fundamental principle of hermeneutics and the constant faith of the Church from Apostolic times.
The Catholic Church teaches that the first principle of hermeneutics--the science of the translation and interpretation of the Bible--is the literal meaning of the text.
The first writer of the New Testament was the apostle Paul. His Letter to the Corinthians was written as early as 56 AD, earlier than the first Gospel, Mark's, written about 64 AD. Paul was also not an eyewitness to what he wrote but testifies to his source.
The next New Testament text in chronological order would have been Mark's Gospel. Written about 64 AD, in Rome, Mark, not an eyewitness, probably heard the account of the Last Supper he recorded from the Apostle Peter.
The third account of the Last Supper could be Matthew's. Matthew, the tax collector Levi, was an eyewitness to the meal. He was one of the twelve Apostles. Matthew probably wrote his Gospel in the 70's.
Luke's account of the Last Supper, written from the standpoint of a Gentile convert and a non-eyewitness, probably heard the details of the Last Supper from Paul. Luke was a traveling companion of Paul. Luke also wrote in the 70's.
The beloved disciple, John, the last of the New Testament writers, wrote his Gospel in the 90's. John was an eyewitness to the events of the Last Supper (Jn 6:30-68).
Hence Catholic Christian belief in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist rests upon the literal meaning of the words of the Last Supper as recorded by the Evangelists and Paul.
The uniformity of expression across the first four authors affirms the literalness. Belief in the real presence demands faith--the basis of new life as called for by Christ throughout scripture. But faith in signs conferring what they signify is the basis also for the Incarnation--appearances belying true meaning. The true significance of the real presence is sealed in John's gospel. Five times in different expressions, Jesus confirmed the reality of what he means.
The best way a person can make a clear literal point is repetition of the same message in different ways. Jesus did this. Those around him clearly understood what he was saying--cannibalism and the drinking of blood--both forbidden by Mosaic Law.
Had these disciples mistaken the meaning of Jesus' words, Jesus would surely have known and corrected them. He didn't. They had clearly understood his meaning--Jesus' flesh was to be really eaten; his blood to be really drunk.
Non believers often respond that even at the Last Supper, the apostles did not sense that they had flesh in their hands and blood in their cup. But Jesus is God. The creative literalness of the words: "This is my body; this is my blood" must be believed. God cannot lie. And God can turn bread into flesh and wine into blood without the appearances of bread and wine changing.
Medieval philosophers and theologians called this expression of Divine Truth and Creative Power "transubstantiation". Yes, God can change the substance of any created matter while the appearances remain unchanged. And this demands faith.
Paul confirms elsewhere in his letters the reality of the real presence.
The persuasion of the Church from Apostolic times about the objective reality of these words of Christ is clear from many documents.
Irenaeus (Asia Minor, 140 - 202), Tertullian (Rome, 160 - 220), Cyprian (Carthage, 200 - 258) are just a few of the earliest who attest to the objective reality of the words of Christ.
In the Church in Alexandria, Athanasius (293 - 373) and Cyril (376 - 444) equally attest to the literal meaning of the words of Christ at the Last Supper.
In the Church in Palestine, Cyril (Jerusalem, 315 - 387) and Epiphanius (Salamis, 367 - 403) also affirm in their teaching the same reality.
Unanimity is found across the universal church until the 11th century. Berengar (Tours, France, 1000 - 1088) was one of the first to deny the real presence by arguing that Christ is not physically present, but only symbolically.
The Council of Rome (a local council), 1079, taught against Berengar that the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ.
By the 16th century, some Reformers (excluding Luther) also taught that Christ's presence in the Eucharist was only figurative or metaphorical. Since there were other opinions being taught as truth (figurative presence and metaphorical presence) a teaching authority (see Chapter 5) had to be appealed to discern error from the truth. The way of the Church was to follow the model of Acts 15.
The Council of Trent (1545 - 1563) defined the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the Eucharist as both the continuing sacrifice of Christ and a real sacrament. The institution of the Eucharist as sacrament was contained in the words "Do this in remembrance of me."
Roman Catholic Christians celebrate the Eucharist in the liturgical act called the Mass. The word Mass comes from the Latin missa ("sent"). It was taken from the formula for dismissing the congregation: Ite missa est ("Go, the Eucharist has been sent forth") referring to the ancient custom of sending consecrated bread from the bishop's Mass to the sick and to the other churches.
The Mass contains two parts: the liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The Liturgy of the Word is a copy of the Jewish synagogue service of the first century: readings from Scripture followed by responses from the congregation often from the Book of Psalms. The Liturgy of the Eucharist is a reenactment of the Last Supper. A celebrant does what Christ did: take bread and wine and say the same words Christ said and then share the now consecrated bread and wine with the congregation.
Roman Catholics believe that the bread and wine become the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and remain such until the elements are entirely consumed. The Body and Blood not consumed at one Eucharist are reserved for the next celebration of the Eucharist and venerated as the Body and Blood of Jesus.
Roman Catholic Christians take the word of God seriously and seek to remember Christ in the Last Supper "as often as" possible. And in doing this proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
Catholic Christians also believe that there is only one sacrifice, Jesus', but following the command "as often as" to proclaim the death of the Lord, the sacrifice of Christ is made physically present to every Christian in all places in every age. The Eucharist makes the atemporal aphysical actions of Christ's redeeming action truly present to us always and everywhere. This is incarnational.
Following the word of God, Catholics also know that Christ is not and cannot be resacrificed. This has never been the teaching of the Catholic Church.
The constant faith of the Church from the Apostolic Fathers attests to the fact that the Mass was the one Sacrifice of Calvary made present to the faithful.
The 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church makes this statement explicitly.
The Roman Catholic Church through history approached her faith life with the clarification of language. That is, she translated the essentials of revealed faith into the vocabulary of living language.
Transubstantiation reflects Roman Catholic faith in the literalness of the words of the Bible.
Jesus (omnipotent God) said: "This is my body; this is my blood." And again Jesus said: "I am the bread of life;" "My flesh is true food; my blood is true drink;" "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood ...;" etc.
Roman Catholics take Jesus at His word: the bread is his body; the wine is his blood.
From the Apostles at the Last Supper until today, the bread and wine of Eucharist looks and feels and tastes like bread and wine in the eating and drinking.
Similar to all of God's Word, faith is essential. Faith in what? In the words of Jesus even though the bread does not look, feel, taste like flesh; even though the wine does not look, feel, taste like blood.
Medieval philosophers and theologians sought simply to label this simple biblical faith: Jesus said that bread is his body and wine is his blood even though it did not appear to change into visible flesh and blood.
Transubstantiation means the substance part of the bread and wine elements changes; but the accidental parts--sight, taste, smell, touch--do not. Catholics believe that since Jesus said it and He is God, he can do it. They believe! "Transubstantiation" merely labels it.
In everyday life, it is not at all uncommon to believe in things man cannot perceive by the senses: wind, electricity, love, peace, etc. All the more when Jesus says it.
You posted: I suppose an alternate explanation is that the author of the first gospel deliberately focused on the primary meaning of “ha’almah” by giving the more restrictive definition in Greek so that anyone reading it would have no doubt as to how the Hebrew word was being used in this context.
Very well stated! Actually, your whole post is instructive.
It is interesting for me to note that Biblical Christianity (by definition) accepts, respects, and appreciates the revelation of the Old Testament and the establishment of the physical seed of Abraham (through Isaac) as the people of God (Hebrews, Jews, or however appropriately identified). Beyond that, though, they believe in the further revelation promised throughout the Old Testament that there would be a new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34), which Christians believe includes the seed of Abraham by faith, and not only blood.
Conversely, non-Christian or non-Messianic Jews do not (as far as I am aware) accept the central beliefs of Christianity, which would move them into this new covenant as Bible believing Christians understand it. These beliefs include the integration of the “Gentiles” who have faith in God into the one people of God.
Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Romans 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Colossians 3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.
You might ought to check with the professors and teachers in the religion departments of your seminaries before you say such a thing.
Besides, even if what you say were true, that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of Catholics (especially clergy and theologians) regard the "old testament" to be primitive mythology. No wonder the Catholic Church is in the mess it's in today.
Obviously it did NOT; for Passover is a YEARLY meal: still is.
If GOD thought a once a year reminder was good enough for His Chosen People; what makes Christians NEED a DAILY dose of Jesus Blood and Meat®?
It runs like this: communion with the Body and Blood of Christ is communion with God. It is spiritually very good. If one does it it frequently, it is good. If you wish to commune with God on a daily basis, both through prayer and through the Eucharist, that is a good and Christian thing. It keeps God first and foremost. We have many Catholics that are Chreasters (Christmas and Easter). They believe that twice a year is enough. They are not normally devout. Devout people put the worship of God to the front of their priorities.
I’ll cut to the chase:
I ‘believe’ that whether a person believes the elements actually turns into Christ’s body and blood when consumed or they do not, makes absolutely NO difference as to their salvation.
Then I will accept that. These folks that blithely state beliefs as if they were facts are irritating.
Look at the Creeds - “I believe...”
Christianity is belief. If that is your belief, then I will respect that as your belief.
The universal Catholic understanding is that the Old Testament cannot be correctly understood without the truth of Christ, and therefore without the New Testament. The Old Testament is, however, inerrant word of God in its entirety.
Further, the Holy Scripture cannot be understood without the study of patristic writing, in which all modern theological thought worth mentioning must be grounded.
To say that the Old Testament is “mere mythology” is aberrant and latecoming teaching.
That the Church is “in the mess today” is true. It is also true that allowing the desacralized Bible study by scholars and milkmaids alike, a Protestant heresy, is probably to blame for much of it.
Luckily, the Church doesn’t look to its modern pastors when they develop theories and theological fantasies. Those come and go. The Church remains because Christ and His saints in Heaven remain, our true Jerusalem.
We are not saved by faith alone, so indeed it is possible to be saved despite one’s weak or even absent faith. However, I would not say that lack of faith, in this case, in the Holy Sacrament makes “absolutely no difference”. Poor, misshapen faith is a huge obstacle for salvation.
A "Protestant heresy?" Before chr*stianity existed the Holy Torah was the birthright of every single Jew, from the King and the Kohen Gadol to the beggar on the streets. It was and is the duty of every Jew to study Torah--as a matter of fact, one of the mitzvot is that every Jew is required to write a Sefer Torah (though nowadays this is usually accomplished by either hiring a sofer to write one on one's behalf or in writing a single letter, since very letter in the Torah is equivalent to the entire thing), though in ancient times people probably wrote their on Torahs in their entirety.
Catholics look down on "brain-dead bibliolators" who believe in the Bible for no other reason than that they believe in it, but Catholicism's faith J*sus, though not held because "the Bible says so," is just as groundless and fideistic.
… in the case of Jesus and the Eucharist we also have John 6 where His body is said to be "food indeed".
Absolutely, and He said that in the tone of “spirituality”. Remember, He also said that “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.” One eats and drinks of His words by coming to Him – for His words are of life! I could expound upon this, but I think you may understand what I just said.
Further, if you were going to suffer and die and your words to me were, pointing at bread, "This is my body", I would at least have the courtesy, knowing you as a thoughtful person to assume you meant it literally and not joking around on a solemn moment like this.
You shouldn’t “assume” anything from me. I would have been serious about such a topic. It would have been allegorical, not literal. That’s no joke!
The Apostles did take Christ literally.
Yes, they did, but they did not leave him – they had no where else to go or to believe in, maybe because Jesus had shown them He was no ordinary “guy”. However, there were some who were following Him that just couldn’t get away from the idea of eating flesh and drinking blood. It’s that way today, also.
St. Paul, for example, considers "not discerning the body" in the Eucharistic bread a great sin, akin to spiritual death (1 Cor 11:23-30). The ideas that the Eucharist is merely a memorial meal with bread and maybe grape juice is a late invention, wholly outside of the Apostolic tradition.
I would say that to get the whole context you would have to read from I Cor. 11:17-34 – right? I agree with you that the Lord’s Supper is NOT merely a memorial meal. It is a communion with the Lord Himself! Those who do not distinguish that the bread and cup refers to Christ’s body eats and drinks judgment upon themselves. We are not far apart on this, and I never put down Catholics on their communion ritual – I just disagree with the “transubstantiation” dogma for there is nothing in the Scriptures that would prove that the bread and fruit of the vine are literally changed (they really aren’t!) into flesh and blood. It is a spiritual thing that Jesus said, pointing out that we are to take part in this eating of the bread and drinking of the cup in remembrance of his death and resurrection until He comes again.
This “transubstantiation” dogma is the thing that is a late-comer in your belief system.
Why, you are correct that in Acts 20:17, 27–28 St Paul speaks of the holy office of the Episcopacy:
Thank you. My only objection to that is your use of the word “holy”, which is a word found in the NT some 240 times – “hagios”, translated 166 times as “holy” and the rest as “saint”. Let me expound on this for the benefit of all readers. Obviously, God is trying to tell us something. But what? The root from which the word “hagios” stem has to do primarily with separation, particularly when the separation is for a special purpose. Thusly:
1. A person set apart is a saint.
2. The act of setting apart is to sanctify.
3. The state of being set apart is sanctification.
4. A place set apart is a sanctuary.
Perhaps you have seen a sign that said “Bird Sanctuary”. That is “for the birds”, literally. Seriously, it really is. It was ‘set apart’ for their habitation and preservation. Popular usage reflects the Romanist corruption of the term (I’m speaking bluntly, please don’t take offense – it is just my way of writing and talking). A friend of mine once observed that in the popular mind a saint is either someone who is too old to get into mischief, or those dead so long all the mischief they got into has been forgotten. That is almost to true too be funny, or better stated, it is too sad to be funny. Address a fellow believer in your sect as a saint and note the response. You will be thought of as being playful, not serious. Paul was serious, though! (Cp. Rom. 1:7, I Cor. 1:2, Eph. 1:1, Phil. 1:2, I Thess. 3:13, II Thess. 1:10, I Tim. 5:10, Philem. 5, plus multiple times throughout his letters. Jude, the Hebrew writer, John, etc., also uses the expression. John Chrysostom, a famed 4th century writer, counseled parents to bestow an ennobling name on their children, and then keep its meaning and challenge before them. What a challenge for us today. We are called (to be) saints, and to be separated from the world and called into the ekklesia of Christ.
Using “holy”, as you did, tells me that you consider the office of the episkopos a separated office from the “saints” of God. I don’t, for many reasons, only one of which I wrote on above. There are many more – later, perhaps, or not.
“Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood” (Act 20:28)
Let me give you what I translated that verse as directly from the Greek manuscripts: “Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the holy (agion) spirit (pneuma) placed you as overseers (episkopous), to shepherd (pastor- poimainein) the called out assembly (ekklesian) of God, which he acquired through the his own blood.
As you see, there is a difference in the meaning from what you quoted (from the Vulgate?) There is no Greek term that could be called “rule” over the assembly. Bishops are not to “rule” over the saints, period – according to the directions given by the apostle Paul. Peter did not “rule” anyone, period. He was merely a fellow-elder with the other elders, as he said. Other than that, well, it’s acceptable
Was your point that priesthood was at the time not separated from episcopacy? That is correct also, -- the Church was not big enough to have preists who are not bishops. That is also clear from 1 Peter 5:
1 The ancients therefore that are among you, I beseech, who am myself also an ancient, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ: as also a partaker of that glory which is to be revealed in time to come: 2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking care of it, not by constraint, but willingly, according to God: not for filthy lucre's sake, but voluntarily: 3 Neither as lording it over the clergy, but being made a pattern of the flock from the heart. 4 And when the prince of pastors shall appear, you shall receive a never fading crown of glory. 5 In like manner, ye young men, be subject to the ancients. And do you all insinuate humility one to another, for God resisteth the proud, but to the humble he giveth grace.
This speaks of the consecrated character of the priesthood, no?
Naturally, I don’t accept your translation here. Let me explain. First your last sentence: Yes, I’ll say NO – a definite NO. There is no “priesthood” of the leadership in the assembly of saints – all of the assembly are priests! I realize that your church takes the Latin transliteration of the Greek “presbuterous” and change its meaning to mean a “priest”. Let me bring out what your Latin Vulgate translates the Greek as in the verses from I Pet. 5:1-5 -
(1) seniores ergo qui in vobis sunt obsecro consenior et testis Christi passionum qui et eius quae in futuro revelanda est gloriae communicator (2) pascite qui est in vobis gregem Dei providentes non coacto sed spontanee secundum Deum neque turpis lucri gratia sed voluntarie (3) neque ut dominantes in cleris sed formae facti gregi et ex animo (4) et cum apparuerit princeps pastorum percipietis inmarcescibilem gloriae coronam (5) similiter adulescentes subditi estote senioribus omnes autem invicem humilitatem insinuate quia Deus superbis resistit humilibus autem dat gratiam
Jerome sure didn’t translate presbuterous as “ancients”, nor did he use any word that would make it mean “priests”! Let’s take an educated look at the term “priest”.
Priest: From the Greek term “hiereus”.
This word is used in Scriptures to identify “one who offers sacrifice and has charge of the things pertaining to it.” It is found only 33 times in the New Covenant Testament of God. 18 of these times it has direct reference to the Jewish Levitical Priests. Of the remaining 15 times, 8 have direct reference to our Lord Jesus Christ, 3 have reference to Melchizedek, 1 to the pagan priests of the god Jupiter, and the remaining 3 refer to the entire membership of the Church — the community of saints who are described as “a kingdom, and priests to God” (revelations 1:6). As you can see, it is not used in very many places, especially to Christians or the Church.
Let us now look and shed some light on this. In searching the New Testament we find that the word “priest” is NEVER ONCE applied to a special ministry or caste in the Church of Christ. NOT ONCE do we find an evangelist, bishop, or deacon referred to as a “priest” in any distinctive sense; no such individual was “priest” by right of office. The only use of the word “priest” when used to describe Christians, and that in only 3 places, always meant the common members and not the leaders only (as an office).
Before I bring out more on this topic, I want you to understand that I do not write this to appear contemptuous, proud, or arrogant, but to find out what God says and not man. I am not a partisan of any group of Christianity except the group God has called-out to be saints. Yes, the word “saint,” the way the Holy Scriptures uses it, is aptly able to describe the term “priest” — but that is something to be expounded upon at another time. Be that as it may, I am forced to use terms just as the Holy Spirit used them, for if I don’t, there is no way that we can have the truth God wanted us to know. Let’s look at the next word that is used by partisans to describe a special group of men before we go on to bring them all together.
Clergy: From the Greek term “kleeros”.
This word has caused a lot of confusion among God’s people. When the average man hears it used he immediately thinks of a special caste or group of distinguished men. His thinking is prejudiced because of its long use, and only partially right. It is to “whom” he relates it to that he is wrong. The meaning of this word as used in Scriptures is not what the average man relates to. He runs to a modern day dictionary and sees that it is a general term or title given collectively to “priests and ministers.” The trouble is that the word in its original meaning and use during the New Testament times of the first three centuries of Christianity was never designated to apply to or create a special caste or group of men (or women).
What then, does it mean? We find in our investigation that the Greek word “kleeros” means “a lot, an inheritance.” In the New Testament Scriptures of God it is used a total of 13 times, but is never translated as “clergy, clergyman or cleric.” It is rendered 1 time as “heritage,” 2 times as “inheritance,” 3 times as “lot,” 5 times as “lots,” and 2 times as “part.” It is never used to mark off a segment or special caste in the Church. It is used to designate ALL who have been redeemed and immersed into Christ. It is God’s people who constitute the “heritage” (kleeros) of Him! God, through Christ, has not selected a special caste or group from among those called-out to be Christians to serve as His “lot” or “inheritance!”
The word “kleeros” was first used around 1500 years before Christ by God to apply to those who were to be his “lot” or “inheritance.” The “kleeros” — clergy — of God were originally to be every member of the tribes of Israel. But, as Scriptures tell us, God changed His mind when the people wouldn’t take on that responsibility, and then chose only the descendents of Aaron to be “priests,” and the rest of the Levites to be servants or ministers to the priesthood of Aaron (See Numbers 3:1–13). That is how the title, “Levitical priests,” came about. Thusly, all Levites were God’s “clergy,” but not all Levites were “priests.” To be a priest, one had to be a direct descendent of Aaron.
The “presbuteros” (transposed from the Greek into our Bible as “presbters”), were the “elders” of each of the other 12 tribes of Israel. NONE of these “elders” were able to be priests, nor “high priests.” There were many of these “presbyters — which means elders” — in each of the 12 tribes of Israel. They were to be the “bishops,” that’s right, the “overseers” of their individual tribes or families. What is important to see is that not a one of these “elders” (presbuteros) who occupied that office of “overseer” (episkopos/bishop) were ever called “priests” (hiereus) or “clergy” (kleeros) of God.
It is futile to think a person could find this word used to apply to priests and ministers as a separate group within the realm of Christianity in the first three centuries, and even for a time thereafter, for its use was ONLY applied to Christians as a whole. Later on, as ecclesiastical groups started forming, they started to use this word to apply to only the elite, that is, only to those who were the leaders. But they had trouble doing this. If they used the term of “kleeros” to apply only to the leaders, the Scriptures would end up saying that ONLY THE LEADERS WERE CHRISTIANS! But that was something they could not do, so they invented the term “clergy,” and in so doing, were forced to invent the word “laity” also. Understand this: The word “kleeros,” God’s lot or heritance, is still applied by those who call themselves “clergy,” to the whole of Christianity. “Clergy” comes from the Greek word “kleeros.” Notwithstanding the appropriation of the term “clergy” to apply to a special select group, the “laity” are still referred to as the “kleeros” of God! Notice how the word “kleeros,” which is taken to mean “clergy” has been redefined into two separate words with very different meanings, although related. This being so, let’s look at this word “laity.”
Laity: From the Greek “laos”.
This word “laos,” from which we get the transposed or the transliterated word “laity,” is found 141 times in God’s New Covenant Scriptures. STOP! You will never find the word “laity” in your Bible! It is ALWAYS translated “people.” “Laos” is NEVER translated by the term “laity.” It is ALWAYS translated “people.” In every instance when it is applied to the community Christ founded, it refers to the whole body of believers. “Laity” is a word invented by the ecclesiastical class to apply to the members of their organization or church. The way it is being used today by the “clergy” has no foundation in Scriptures, nor in the history of the early church up to the time the word “clergy” was invented. This Greek word “laos” was never used by the writers of Scriptures to refer to a group as distinguished from a priestly or a ministerial caste or class of people. In fact, the Apostle Peter used the term “laos” to designate all God’s “clergy.” Hear Him: “But you are a chosen race, a ROYAL PRIESTHOOD, a holy nation, God’s OWN PEOPLE (laos), that you may declare the wonderful deeds of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9). Again: “Draw near to Him (Christ), a living stone, indeed rejected by men but chosen and honored by God. Be you yourselves as living stones, built thereon into a spiritual house, a HOLY PRIESTHOOD, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:4–5).
This passage by Peter is real clear and also very significant, for it identifies the PRIESTHOOD — the CLERGY of God, as God’s LAITY, God’s called-out ekklesian, the Church of Christ. Yes, God’s CLERGY are His LAITY, and as Peter said, all God’s laity (people) are members of the priesthood — a ROYAL PRIESTHOOD.
What shall we say to this then? Shall we continue to ignore what God has said and go on our merry way? Shall we continue to apply the words God used in a sense that He never applied them? Absolutely NOT. At least, I won’t. Every priest of God is one of His laity, and every member of God’s laity is a priest in the royal priesthood of God. Every child of God is His lot or heritage through the shed blood of Christ, all of God’s children are His clergy. Since Peter designated the “laity” as “clergy,” there can never be a distinction between them in God’s kingdom.
I’ve been quite wordy in this post, but it, IMHO, was needed. I’m also somewhat blunt in what I say, so please forgive me if it offends you – no offense was intended. It’s now your turn…may God’s spirit be with you.
Aboslutely, every Catholic should study the Holy Bible with zeal and reverence, and the Catholics today don’t do it nearly enough. The heresy is to study it in a self-styled, undisciplined way. To study it through the eye of the Church is a duty and a blessing.
Indeed, -- the Eucharist is the kind of food from which the flesh does not profit. Yet, it is Hs flesh and it is "food indeed". This is the Real Presence as the Church teaches it.
This “transubstantiation” dogma is the thing that is a late-comer
Transubstantiation is a way to explain the Real Presence in the light of modern (that is to say, Medieval) philosophy. It is indeed a medieval construct, not terribly popular in the East either. But the real dispute is the Real Presence of Christ in full in the Eucharistci meal. That is taugth directly in the Bible. There are allusions to the transubstantiation as well, but they are more subtle.
**This “transubstantiation” dogma is the thing that is a late-comer in your belief system.**
I’m wrinkling my brow and questioning your use of the word “latecomer.”
The first tansformation of substance (transubstandiation) took place in the hands of Jesus Christ. That is hardly “latecoming” as you say.
Your prior post, criticizing the reading of the Bible by theologians and "milmaids," implied otherwise.
The whole point of my argument, however (which you well know) is that most Catholics dismiss the Hebrew Bible as primitive mythology while hypocritically insisting on the literal interpretation of the "new testament." There is no defense for such inconsistency.
We was a fellow priest and bishop. The office of the bishop is to oversee priests. The office of priest is to consecrate the Eucharist. Both offices are holy as they deal with the holy matter: the sacrifice of Christ. Which of that do you object about, and more importantly think that the scripture teaches different?
There is no “priesthood” of the leadership in the assembly of saints – all of the assembly are priests!
There is both kids of priesthood. This is what the Church teaches about that.
Ontologically there are no priests other than Christ Himself. He is The Priest. When a properly consecrated priest today says Mass, it is nto the priest as a human being consecrating the bread, it is Christ Himself doing it through the priests moth and finger.
The priest is someone sent by Christ to consecrate the Eucharist (Luke 22:19) and to forgive or retain sins (John 20:21). In that task Christ is acting through him (Luke 10:16). The bishop is a priest who is also in charge of selecting and ordaining priests (Titus, Timothy both books).
Finally, the head of Christian household is a priest in charge of teaching his house. He is priest inwardly to his family and himself. That capacity of a confirmed Christian is of course also holy (1 Peter 2).
Much of your post deals with linguistics rather than the function. I don't have time or inclination to argue about words. Functionally, the above is what priesthood is. If you think the Bible teaches different, show me. Feel free to refer to the Greek original directly, I read and understand Greek.
Again, the heresy is not the study itself, but a study outside of the authentic tradition which produced the holy books in question. Yes, some Catholics are guilty of it as well.
The transubstantiation did occur at the hands of Christ roughly 2000 years ago at the Last Supper. But the theologians of the Early Church did not use the term, because the concept of substance and accident was not known to them. In that sense it is a late addition: a way to explain the Real Presence more effectively. The Early Church simply refused to attempt any logical explanation of the Eucharistic miracle.
I'm not surprised one bit with the tone of your post, the hurried typing with errors and the ignoring of what I posted. IMHO you probably can't really address what I brought out from the "holy" Scriptures - which seems to be the MO of Catholics, educated or not.
I also refer, read and understand the Greek. And I use it almost all the time in my exegesis of the old manuscripts. What you posted is not to be found in the Scriptures, period. It comes from the philosophical meanderings of the natural (sinful) man.
We was a fellow priest and bishop. The office of the bishop is to oversee priests. The office of priest is to consecrate the Eucharist. Both offices are holy as they deal with the holy matter: the sacrifice of Christ. Which of that do you object about, and more importantly think that the scripture teaches different?
ALL OF IT! I don't "think" the scriptures teaches differently, I "KNOW" the scriptures teach differently than what you said above. And I've given you what the scriptures have to say about the offices of the church, period.
I believe that the readers of this thread can distinguish between the Scriptures and what each of us had to say. I made a comment in a previous post that your church is a super cult of Christianity - I stick with that even more so now that you have confirmed it with your assertions.
However, I do praise God that you preach Christ and Him crucified, buried and resurrected for the forgiveness of sinful man that believes and obey Him. I will also pray that the holy Scriptures correct your thinking of the topic discussed.
History says you are dead wrong! LOL!
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.