I forgot to comment on your very valid remark, that the Old Testament spells out the priestly duties in great detail, whereas the New Testament devotes scant passages to the priestly function and does not give any such detail.
I would say, that is because in general the Old Testament is written like an instruction book to the Hebrew nation, complete with the measurements of the Ark of the Covenant and 613 commandments for every occasion. The New Testament reflects the Christian theology of grace rather than the Old Hebrew theology of law. To describe the rules of the Church with any precision would be to stifle the creative spirit that indwells in the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Times change and the Church changes with them. Here is one important development: confessions in the Early Church were public and gradually the concept of privacy of the confessional was introduced, in order to encourage confessing sins that might expose unconfessed sins of others. Priestly celibacy could not be introduced in the Early Church for practical reasons, that was another innovation of early Middle Age.
And thank you; I enjoy explaining the basics of Catholic theology to non-Catholic Christians.
I can only use the inspired writings of God. As a Catholic, you stated some of your truths are inspired, some are uninspired and some are based on tradition
More precisely, the inspired truth taught by the Church are more than the canonical Scripture alone. Nowhere in the argument with you on this thread have I used anything but the Holy Canonical Scripture, for that reason: that you, being Protestant (that what you seem to be however you describe your beliefs), would not be convinced by anything else and my job as a Catholic is to evangelize you.
One of the greatest victories the god of this world has accomplished is by dividing the disciples of Christ into two groups, for the most part, Catholic/Orthodox and Protestants. Even worse, we allow ourselves to be diescribed as such. I am a Christian, a disciple of Christ.
You use inspired verse with a Catholic commentary that may or may not be inspired as I will show later.
In your posts you keep returning to John 20:19-23 and declare those 5 lines of scripture are so special that a priesthood was developed. You also state instances where these Priest’s carry out special functions.
Correct; I state these scriptures sufficient to conclude that a special group of believers had what can be described as priestly functions in the Early Church and could propagate as a group down in history to this day. The Scripture would not be sufficient to know every detail, -- we know virtually nothing of the ritualistic component of these functions, for example, but I did not attempt to argue those. I showed where the scripture gives specifically Catholic understandings of the Sacrament of Confession as absolution or retention of sins against God, and of the holy Eucharist as a real presence of Christ and His redemptive Sacrifice among the celebrants. Earlier I also showed where the scripture describes a process of purification that precedes entry into Heaven of a believer who ends up saved.
Scripture calls those individuals, bishops, pastors or overseers.
The New Testament uses the term "p?esß?te???" to refer to that newly emerges cast of believers (e.g. 1 Timothy 4:14), and it also continues with the old term, "?e?e??" to apply to both Old Testament priesthood, Christian priesthood and Christ Himself, the pattern of all Catholic priests, as the Letter to the Hebrews explains. In the English language there are no separate words for Christian Priest and other priests, so Douay, a Catholic translation, uses "priest" for both, whereas Protestant translations prefer "elder" for the Christian priests. My argument is not, however, about words but about the priestly functions seen in the New Testament, however we translate the Greek terminology of the time into English.
I went to Douy John 20: 23 and look what I found;
[23] Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.
The commentary
Bishop is "overseer", -- that is what the word "ep?s??p??" means. Again, Protestant translations avoid Catholic terms and insert something else to suit their bias. A bishop is the kind of priest who also has administrative function and can ordain priests. We see such usage in Acts 20:28; they "rule the Church of God".
Go back to verse 17. You will see the commentary directed to the elders of the church. If you read the whole verse 28 you see it is the Holy Spirit who gave them charge over their flock.
There is no inspired scriptural bases for a Christian earthly church as practiced by your religion
I should proof read better. That should have read; "earthly priesthood"
I showed you the basis. If you don't agree, feel free to offer your arguments some more, but please do not tell me that the reason you don't feel like arguing is because I used something other than the Holy Scripture and the historical reality that we can glean from it.
I forgot to comment on your very valid remark, that the Old Testament spells out the priestly duties in great detail, whereas the New Testament devotes scant passages to the priestly function and does not give any such detail.
It doesn't go into detail because no earthly priesthood exists. The only NT Priest is in heaven, Christ Jesus. As I said before, read Hebrews. It is the main theme of the epistle.
I would say, that is because in general the Old Testament is written like an instruction book to the Hebrew nation, complete with the measurements of the Ark of the Covenant and 613 commandments for every occasion. The New Testament reflects the Christian theology of grace rather than the Old Hebrew theology of law. To describe the rules of the Church with any precision would be to stifle the creative spirit that indwells in the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Times change and the Church changes with them. Here is one important development: confessions in the Early Church were public and gradually the concept of privacy of the confessional was introduced, in order to encourage confessing sins that might expose unconfessed sins of others. Priestly celibacy could not be introduced in the Early Church for practical reasons, that was another innovation of early Middle Age.
I could be sarcastic and ask if you believe in a living breathing Constitution as well. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. He has to be. It is the only way we can trust what He says.
God told us to confess our sins to one anther openly for our benifit and the benifit of others. Doing it in private benifits no one. A preist didn't forgive sins at first either. That came with the privete confessional.
Let's see what God said He wants for Bishops.
3 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop,[a] he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money,[b] but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
This looks to me like someone I would want to represent me. I wonder how practical God thinks your Church's inovation is.
I know Paul was single. That proves God can use a single person but He has shown what is His ideal. Your religon has chosen to use the eception as your rule. All single.
May God the Father lead us all to His truths, BVB