Posted on 03/08/2017 12:27:14 PM PST by SeekAndFind
When is a vain response, since it is I who has substantiated what I talk about, and exposed your argument as fallacious.
You judge pope to be a Francis as a Marxist, dictatorial, power hungry, false prophet Pope, and and that Pope Benedict failed in his duty to the Church, and which public reproof you justify in the name of conscience. And while i reason-ably agreed dissent must be allowed, in both spiritual and civil realms, yet this does not make private much less public dissent to such right in the eyes of Rome in the light of such papal teaching as I provided. Which does not leave the validity of popes and their public teaching up to each individual to decide, which is what RCs censure evangelicals for doing.
I am not saying you are wrong in your judgment or dissent, and can even provide support for the censor of certain Catholic dissenters being wrong, but I am merely showing you that it is contrary to what is required of Catholics by her authorities, while they call us to submit to it as the unchanging church, versus judging teaching by Scripture. Likewise, you have Catholics calling other Catholics unfaithful, based on whether or not they follow past or modern teaching, based upon their judgment of what each teaches. .
But while leadership and or people can go South, Scripture alone remains wholly inspired and unchanging.
Excellent rebuttal!
Quite factual.
That priests are left out of.
Using logic on an Emotionalist hardly ever works.
I’ve learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.
Maya Angelou
Facts tend to make some Catholics ‘feel’ duped; thus the lashing out at the messenger.
But this is not the issue. We can turn your statement around and say that the Holy Spirit never uses priest (i.e. presbuteros) for hiereus.
The problem is not that presbyteros evolved into priest but that this is the same term used for a separate sacerdotal class, thereby losing the distinction the Holy Spirit provided.
It is just as logical to say that we should then stop using priest for hiereus and start translating the latter as sanctifier as it is to stop using priest for presbuteros, translating it as elder instead. But the question is not just how to translated the NT term but what to call the present day presbyters. For a thousand years they have been called priests in English, starting centuries before the term was also used for hiereus. This is just as valid as a consideration as the translation of the terms in bible translations.
Indeed, but that is a fallacious basis for arguing that they must have more than one meaning, and to justify using the same term for two offices contrary to what the Holy Spirit does!
Not to justify but only to point out the truth that, like it or not, in English priest does, indeed, have two definitions.
You are simply reading into the text a unique sacerdotal pastoral function which simply is not there, and is nowhere shown or taught in the record of the NT church in Scripture.
While not in Scripture, it is in the historical record of the early Church.
As said, nowhere in Acts onward are NT pastors shown conducting the Lord's supper as priests, offering the elements as a sacrifice for sins, and dispensing them to the people to be consumed in order to obtain spiritual life.
Nor does the NT show anyone other than the pastors conducting the Mass/Lord's Supper. We do know that the Mass/Lord's Supper was celebrated and that someone had to do it. Here we have a problem with the Protestant attempt at sola scriptura. The NT, however, does not describe how, or by whom, the Mass/Lord's Supper was to be celebrated. It did not need to; the faithful already knew how.
Paul's letters were not intended to be a systematic exposition of the belief and practices of the Church. They were written to particular churches who had already be instructed and were living the faith. His letters were written to address specific problems that had arisen. While without dispute the divinely inspired word of God, to treat the NT as a full catechism and church ordinal is to go beyond its purpose.
This is were the testimony of the early Church Fathers is helpful. Although they are not Scripture, they do give testimony to the beliefs and practices of the early Church.
Which vain argument by assertion is simply begging the question, presuming the very thing that needs to be proved, which is that the semi-literal metaphysical (that is what it is) understanding of Catholicism is what Scripture elsewhere reveals these words to mean, versus the metaphorical meaning.
Not presuming but just reading the plain meaning of the words. It is the Protestants who must force a metaphorical meaning on the words because of a pre-conceived theology based upon the man-made traditions of the Reformers. Nor is the NT without evidence of the understanding of the Mass/Lord's Supper as a true sacrifice and the sacerdotal character of its ministers:
But I have written to you rather boldly in some respects to remind you, because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in performing the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering up of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the holy Spirit. (Romans 15:15-16)Grace given me by God. Paul's ministry described here is not the "common priesthood of the faithful."
Minister: leitourgos. A public minister generally but also specifically a minister of the temple (it is the word from which we get the term liturgy):
The main point of what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister (lietourgos) of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle that the Lord, not man, set up. (Hebrews 8:1-20)
Priestly service: hierourgounta. Priestly, i.e. sacerdotal, service; the service of a hiereus.
Offering, i.e a sacrificial offering.
Paul is here describing his hieratic/sacerdotal ministry in receiving the sacrificial offerings of the gentiles. This is not mere preaching. Nor should you jump to a "metaphorical" interpretation when the plain words can be taken at face value and the testimony of the early Church Fathers confirm the early Christians understanding that they were celebrating a true sacrifice.
Which uninspired, fallible speech simply testifies to the progressive deformation of the church , if not necessarily salvifically here.
I will note the dates of the Didache, Clement and Ignatius. They were describing the Church while St. John was still alive. Are you going to tell me that the Church went into heresy before the death of the last of the Apostles? And were there no "real Christians" who objected to this? And if the Church was unreliable in passing on the faith at such an early date, how could it be reliable in passing on what books are, and are not, Sacred Scripture?
But this is not the issue. We can turn your statement around and say that the Holy Spirit never uses priest (i.e. presbuteros) for hiereus.
It is indeed the basic issue, that of the Holy Spirit making a distinction btwn presbuteros and hiereus. And that the Holy Spirit never uses presbuteros/priest for hiereus actually supports my argument is that using priest for presbuteros is wrong since it is used for hiereus, due to basic Catholic conflation of the two.
As i had said, "The problem is not that presbyteros evolved into priest but that this is the same term used for a separate sacerdotal class, thereby losing the distinction the Holy Spirit provided."
It is just as logical to say that we should then stop using priest for hiereus and start translating the latter as sanctifier as it is to stop using priest for presbuteros, translating it as elder instead.
Indeed, if priest was the best translation for presbuteros (which it is not) and would maintain the distinction the Holy Spirit manifests. As i had said, "If priest was a corresponding term for presbyterous in distinction to to hiereus then you would have a case for its use, but instead it is wrong to justify using the same term for both presbyterous and hiereus when the Holy Spirit makes a distinction by never doing so."
For a thousand years they have been called priests in English, starting centuries before the term was also used for hiereus. This is just as valid as a consideration as the translation of the terms in bible translations.
I do not see where you get your thousand years starting centuries before priests was also used for hiereus, and actually the etymology from the Greek to English is somewhat murky, and you must know, "An alternative theory (to account for the -eo- of the Old English word) makes it cognate with Old High German priast, prest, from Vulgar Latin *prevost "one put over others," from Latin praepositus "person placed in charge," from past participle of praeponere (see provost). In Old Testament sense, a translation of Hebrew kohen, Greek hiereus, Latin sacerdos." - http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=priest)
But no, priest is not just as valid a translation of presbuteros unless the distinction is maintained btwn presbuteros and hiereus, while presbyter would be the more fitting transliteration, or elder/senior as being corespondent.
Not to justify but only to point out the truth that, like it or not, in English priest does, indeed, have two definitions.
You certainly do seem to want to justify using the same term for two offices, contrary to what the Holy Spirit does, and a problem is that priest is used in Catholicism as if it had one definition, that of denoting a separate sacerdotal class of believers as priests, basically corresponding to the separate sacerdotal OT class, contrary to the distinction made by never calling presbuteros hiereus.
While not in Scripture, it is in the historical record of the early Church.
Which simply does not mean they are one and the same, which they often are not.
As said, nowhere in Acts onward are NT pastors shown conducting the Lord's supper as priests, offering the elements as a sacrifice for sins, and dispensing them to the people to be consumed in order to obtain spiritual life.
Nor does the NT show anyone other than the pastors conducting the Mass/Lord's Supper.
Which argument infers it shows Catholic priests conducting Mass, while in reality is that from Acts all the way thru Revelation the NT does not describe anyone at all in the NT church conducting Mass, much less a priest offering the elements as a sacrifice for sins, and dispensing them to the people to be consumed in order to obtain spiritual life, in stark contrast to Catholicism in which this is the essential centerpiece of worship.
We do know that the Mass/Lord's Supper was celebrated and that someone had to do it.
Even that pastoral leadership was required is assumed, while the Lord simply said "as oft as ye do this" and neither descriptions of believers breaking bread from house to house or any other descriptions conveys liturgical or necessarily pastoral officiating. Only the imagined formal liturgical sacerdotal priestly ritual reads that into the texts, while the Holy Spirit provides many descriptions of NT pastoral functions.
Yet the issue is not whether a pastor led the flock in coming together to eat the Lords supper, as would be expected in a meeting in which a pastor was present, but that the aforementioned preeminent place and description of the Catholic Eucharistic Mass ans priestly function is inexplicably simply absent, despite the many details the Holy Spirit provides about church life. No wonder wholy inspired Scripture being the supreme and sufficient standard must be replaced with sola ecclesia/the church cannot err.
Here we have a problem with the Protestant attempt at sola scriptura. The NT, however, does not describe how, or by whom, the Mass/Lord's Supper was to be celebrated. It did not need to; the faithful already knew how. . They were written to particular churches who had already be instructed and were living the faith. His letters were written to address specific problems that had arisen. While without dispute the divinely inspired word of God, to treat the NT as a full catechism and church ordinal is to go beyond its purpose.
That is mere sophistry, for we are not dealing with such scope and depth as would require a comprehensive Catechism, but the most fundamental manifest part of Catholic worship, "the source and summit of the Christian life," around which all else revolves, with the the active duty priest being "most of all to offer the Eucharistic Sacrifice." And which, if the NT church was Catholic, would surely be manifest in many places, with the sacerdotal activity of priests, from the birth of the church in Acts onward. And at least one manifest And instead, if we even consider Acts to speak of the Lord's supper, we have descriptions of communal meals which infer informality or at best are befitting of Protestant gatherings. And then nothing at in Romans and the rest of the NT save for one letter (and the "feast of charity" in Jude 1:12), including any theology on transubstantiation or the sacerdotal function of the pastorate, not even in Hebrews.
Nor is the Lord's supper set forth as the means of obtaining spiritual food, or as a remedy for problems, and instead of pastors being described as offering the Lord's supper or being exhorted to do so, as said, we have them being charged to preach the word, which is said to be "milk," "meat," which nourishes and builds souls up, and by which they feed the flock.
And in then in 1Co. 10 believers are "one bread" who have communion with Christ and each other analogous to how pagans have fellowship with demons by taking part in their dedicatory feast. Which is not by consuming their flesh. And in 1Co. 11, the focus is on the church as the the body of Christ showing the Lord's sacrificial death for them by showing that love by unselfishly sharing food in that communal feast of charity. Which the Corinthians were not, hypocritically no recognizing the body of Christ by selfishly eating independently, which effect was to "shame them which have not." And like as if any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy, so some died for how they hypocritically remembered=showed the Lord's death for the church (its member which He bought with His sinless shed blood, cf. Acts 20:28).
And in which description we have nothing distinctively Catholic, no priests, no words of transubstantiation, and in reiterating the words Catholics contrive as literal, Paul calls what is consumed "bread," and states that the Lord's supper is to "show/proclaim" the Lord's death will He comes, not that He is there under appearance of non-existent bread.
Secondly, these letters were not written to particular churches who had already had such instruction and faithfulness that would explain the absence of such Catholic basics and fundamentals that are missing by example or instruction, especially the distinctive Catholic "Eucharistic celebration," but instead in Acts and or NT letters we see manifest much of basics and fundamentals, from the deity of Christ, repentance and faith, to baptism, to prayer (yet never to anyone but the Lord) the nature of the church, to justification, to sanctification, to church discipline, to new covenant realities, to the resurrection, to church discipline, to eternal judgment, etc. Yet even Hebrews does not teach the Eucharistic celebration, nor mention it as one of the fundamentals are regards living out the faith. Nor is the well attested deity of Christ or the basis for the Trinity comparable to transubstantiation.
And third, as is abundantly evidenced, as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. To which oral preaching was subject to testing by.
A SS preacher can himself enjoin obedience to oral preaching, under the premise that it can be shown to be Scriptural, as that of the NT was/is. However, NT preachers could also speak as wholly inspired of God in providing new public revelation, neither of which Rome does.
This is were the testimony of the early Church Fathers is helpful. Although they are not Scripture, they do give testimony to the beliefs and practices of the early Church. Indeed, the post apostolic church, but which does not mean they are the same, yet in the case of any conflict Catholics look to (what Rome chooses from) them as determinative.
Which vain argument by assertion is simply begging the question, presuming the very thing that needs to be proved, which is that the semi-literal metaphysical (that is what it is) understanding of Catholicism is what Scripture elsewhere reveals these words to mean, versus the metaphorical meaning.
Not presuming but just reading the plain meaning of the words.
Which is plainly absurd. David plainly called water the blood of men, thus refused to drink it but poured it out unto the Lord. To be consistent with the "face value" "plain meaning of the words" hermeneutic such should be taken literally. Also, men were said to be bread for Israel. The word of God was eaten. Jesus said that living by the Father/doing His will, as believers are to live by Him, was His "meat. And promised to give living water. And the list goes on , all of which are shown to be metaphorical in the light of the rest of Scripture, as is "this is My body.." and which shows that the "plain meaning of the words" hermeneutic is absurd,
And as said, since it was said "this is my body which is broken for you" and "blood...which is shed" then Catholics do not take this words according to the "plain meaning of the words." For the body that was broken/bruised as the Lord poured out His blood/life/soul as an offering for sin (cf. Is. 53:10) was not some inanimate object which would scientifically test as it appeared, but was instead what it did not appear at all to be, as with a Gnostic Christ, but it was one that was manifestly incarnated. Thus this bloody flesh is what the bread would have become if the words are to be taken according to the "face value" "plain meaning of the words," in contrast to a metaphysical understanding in which the "real" body and blood of Christ looks, tastes, and would test as mere bread and wine, but "really" is Christ (even to the smallest particles, that may end up in the vacuum cleaner) until such begins to decay, but which bread and wine "really" has ceased to exist anyway. This is hardly what even the carnal Jews in Jn. 6 rejected.
Thus the problem is with a church deciding it can come up with such a unScriptural metaphysical novelty, and require basic belief in it, since she considers herself infallible.
It is the Protestants who must force a metaphorical meaning on the words because of a pre-conceived theology based upon the man-made traditions of the Reformers.
Nonsense, for while knows nothing of Rome's metaphysical fantasy, in contrast only the metaphorical meaning is easily consistent with the rest of Scripture , which abundantly reveals the use of metaphorical language, which the apostles would have been familiar with, and thus had no problem with these otherwise profoundly perplexing words.
Nor is the NT without evidence of the understanding of the Mass/Lord's Supper as a true sacrifice and the sacerdotal character of its ministers: But I have written to you rather boldly in some respects to remind you, because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in performing the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering up of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the holy Spirit. (Romans 15:15-16) Grace given me by God. Paul's ministry described here is not the "common priesthood of the faithful." Minister: leitourgos. A public minister generally but also specifically a minister of the temple (it is the word from which we get the term liturgy): The main point of what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister (lietourgos) of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle that the Lord, not man, set up. (Hebrews 8:1-20) Priestly service: hierourgounta. Priestly, i.e. sacerdotal, service; the service of a hiereus. Offering, i.e a sacrificial offering. Paul is here describing his hieratic/sacerdotal ministry in receiving the sacrificial offerings of the gentiles. This is not mere preaching. Nor should you jump to a "metaphorical" interpretation when the plain words can be taken at face value and the testimony of the early Church Fathers confirm the early Christians understanding that they were celebrating a true sacrifice.
That is a truly desperate egregiously extrapolative, but understandable necessary attempt to make the Lord's Supper into the Mass, a true sacrifice (for sins) and the sacerdotal character of its ministers. Not that i have not seen it before.
First of all, rather than being about the Lord's Supper being the Mass, a true sacrifice (for sins) and which Christians understood that they were celebrating, there is absolutely zero manifest mention of the Lord's supper here, nor is 'the offering up of the Gentiles" necessarily referring to something they offer for "the offering [up] of the Gentiles" is consistent with Paul's offering of the Gentles, you expressed in Romans that he desired "some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles." (Romans 1:13)
Robertson's states "The offering up of the Gentiles (hē prosphora tōn ethnōn). Genitive of apposition, the Gentiles being the offering. They are Paul’s offering." Thus Paul says to the Thessalonians, "For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming? " (1 Thess. 2:19; cf. Rv. 3:11) And to the Corinthians, “we are your rejoicing, even as ye also are ours in the day of the Lord Jesus.” 2Cor. 1:14) And to the Philippians, that being “my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved.” (Phil. 4:1) And all believers can offer such fruit, and indeed they will be rewarded according to the manner of this work.
Yet even if Rm. 15:16 refers to the Gentiles making offering, this is nowhere shown to be the Lord's supper, but instead all believers are called to sacrifice, from their body to everything to praise. (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; Lk. 14:33; Mk. 10:28,29) 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9)
And all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6)
And thus both offering fruit and other sacrifices is a grace given to all, and thus Paul's ministry is not described here as having any unique priesthood in function. Other believers
As for "Minister: leitourgos," this simply means that Paul was one that ministered as was Epaphroditus, my brother, and companion in labour, and fellowsoldier, but your messenger, and he that ministered [leitourgos] to my wants. (Philippians 2:25) Both were also priests along with all the faithful as part of the general hieráteuma in the NT.
As for "Priestly service: hierourgounta," once again this simply means that Paul was one that ministered in building the church by "ministering the gospel of God," as we see him so often described as doing in preaching and teaching, versus ministering as a priest in offering up the substantiated Eucharist as an offering to sins. .
This is simply nowhere seen, despite the extensive record and writings of Paul, nor is they any unique sacerdotal priesthood of presbyters here as much as you want and need to find this. All in all, the desperate manner of your attempted argument is an argument against you position.
And instead we have descriptions of communal meals which infer informality or at best are befitting of Protestant gatherings. And in which the focus was on the church as the the body of Christ showing the Lord's sacrificial death for them by showing that love by unselfishly sharing food in that communal feast of charity. Which the Corinthians were not.
I will note the dates of the Didache, Clement and Ignatius. They were describing the Church while St. John was still alive. the Didache may have been compiled in its present form as late as 150, and presuming the integrity of even all of the "7 Authentic Letters of Ignatius' is another thing, while in any case the letters to the 7 churches in Asia do tell us the Church while St. John was still alive, and which shows them overall in various stages of declension, which Scriptural history reveals happens soon. Nor do these quite varied 7 churches testify to Catholic distinctives.
Are you going to tell me that the Church went into heresy before the death of the last of the Apostles?
Not totally, of course not, but such certainly developed even before the death of the last of the Apostles, and it is actually quite presumptuous to hold that significant erroneous beliefs progressively developed, which Catholic history attest to . But the 4th century you had the first murderous pope. Later made a "saint." Meanwhile early one most of the leadership of the churches were supporters of Arianism.
However, as in the OT, salvific truth and a relative remnant always existed to various degrees, and thus the body of Christ, the only one true church since it alone always only consists 100% of believers, continued to overcome the gates of Hell. Which the institutionalized church largely became.
And were there no "real Christians" who objected to this?
Most likely most were of simple faith who laid hold of Christ amidst the trappings of traditions of men, and politics, etc. And seeing it is estimated that we only have a small portion of what even early so-called "church fathers" wrote, while beliefs in Catholicism were far more variegated before Trent, then there is much much that we do not know. And i presume Rome would not want us to.
And if the Church was unreliable in passing on the faith at such an early date, how could it be reliable in passing on what books are, and are not, Sacred Scripture?
Catholicism fully reliable in either case, and since church law, and not Scripture, is the supreme law for Catholicism, then an indisputable canon was not critical, and thus scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued among a minority down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon (if not identical to the EOs) after the death of Luther.
Regardless, being historical instruments of passing on Divine writings does mean such are the infallible preservers of faith. Based upon the many references to OT writings by the Lord and the church to the Jews, it is evident that the latter passed on a body of authoritative writings (if incomplete) under those who sat in the seat of Moses, yet their also erred in adding traditions of men and other errors.
And rather than the Catholic model, in which dissent from the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) is rebellion to God, the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)
And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved by Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) versus the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults).
Now its about time to shovel
I will stay with the clear words of the Bible and the testimony of what the early Church believed. If you want to go with contorted rationalizations to support the man-made inventions of the 16th century, what can I say?
Rather, as shown, you simply do not go by the clear words of the Bible and the most manifest testimony therein of what the NT Church believed, but believe and contrived and employ contorted assertions to support the religion after the flesh, and thus have nothing Scriptural to say for them.
The End.
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.