Posted on 08/27/2010 11:45:13 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
Hypocrites
God will not be mocked folks
My my, you certainly did grieve for a long time. But at last, you're back, working on converting those eeeeeeevil Catlicks.
Really? By whose definition? The noun charisma and the adjective charismatic existed long before 1905. Which, come to think of it, is a point in time longer than most Protestants have had their theologies fabricated...
But there are loads of fools and idiots that simply go around begging to be mocked.
You forgot "freaking".
I'm getting very uncomfortable with how everyone is writing everyone else out and off. I realize some of it is polemical/rhetorical, but it's still disturbing.
3 popes
So now, it's not just WHAT scriptures say, it's where they are located that matter to you. Is that what you are saying?
Just what exactly do you do with the Bible after John?
How about looking at the language that God chose for the scriptures
the greek word for elder is different than the greek words for priest.. archiereus which translates into “High Priest” and hiereus which translates one that OFFERS SACRIFICES.
The role of the priesthood in scripture was to offer sacrifices.. That is what a priest does in scripture.. God set aside one tribe to be priests, they were not granted any land as God was their inheritance .
The greek have a couple words for priest
hiereus
1) a priest, one who offers sacrifices and in general in busied with sacred rites
a) referring to priests of Gentiles or the Jews,
2) metaph. of Christians, because, purified by the blood of Christ and brought into close intercourse with God, they devote their life to him alone and to Christ
and archiereus
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) chief priest, high priest
2) the high priests, these comprise in addition to one holding the high priestly office, both those who had previously discharged it and although disposed, continued to have great power in the State, as well as the members of the families from which high priest were created, provided that they had much influence in public affairs.
3) Used of Christ because by undergoing a bloody death he offered himself as an expiatory sacrifice to God, and has entered into the heavenly sanctuary where he continually intercedes on our behalf.
Neither role is given in scripture for the new church ..
Christ fulfilled the role of Priest on the cross.. there is no more sacrifice for sin
He is now our High Priest..
The word for elder is presbyteros here is the GREEK definition
1) elder, of age,
a) the elder of two people
b) advanced in life, an elder, a senior
1) forefathers
2) a term of rank or office
a) among the Jews
1) members of the great council or Sanhedrin (because in early times the rulers of the people, judges, etc., were selected from elderly men)
2) of those who in separate cities managed public affairs and administered justice
b) among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably
c) the twenty four members of the heavenly Sanhedrin or court seated on thrones around the throne of God
Even the Douay-Rheims Bible does not translate that as priests.
.
Acts 4:5 And it came to pass on the morrow, that their princes, and ancients, and scribes, were gathered together in Jerusalem;
A poor translation from the greek, but non the less even they did not translate it as priest.
Now the Holy Spirit knows the difference in the greek words.. there is no priesthood provided for in the NT church.
There was no priests in the new church.it was about 300 AD before the first priesthood appeared..
They ignore it when they do not like what it says ...so much for the inspired infallible word of God
You are SOOOO right... . :)
I would never use that in reference to the good Dr. E.
I'm getting very uncomfortable with how everyone is writing everyone else out and off. I realize some of it is polemical/rhetorical, but it's still disturbing.
Overall, I'd agree. There are many of the non Catholic folks that are reasonable and with whom I and the other Catholic apologists have serious and sometimes fruitful discussion rather than contentious confrontation, but their participation, and ours (to be fair) on that level is less than ideal.
Are you saying that 3 popes wrote all the heretical Protestant doctrine after 1905? Which popes would they be?
There is no priesthood AS YOU UNDERSTAND IT provided for in the NT Church. There is a priesthood.
:)
Show me ...
I think the thesis is that 3 popes have encouraged or endorsed some elements of the charismatic renewal, therefore the whole thing is legit in the eyes of the Church.
I'm not sure that the alleged "endorsements" are any more real than the "endorsement" of medjugorje by JPII.
They do not understand what it means that we have died and are vivified with Christ's Spirit. And they do not understand Christ, eternity, or infinity.
They read Paul -- who is certainly very great indeed -- but they do not understand his very practical mysticism. And lacking this understanding, they have to go to the times before Christ or to non-Christian religions for their notion of priesthood.
This is why, on the vexed matter of "alter Christus" they completely miss the boat. They cannot articulate what it is they argue against in a way which we recognize as having to do with what we profess. And so they hurl the same dicta at us over and over again and it makes absolutely no difference to what we believe.
Arguing with them is like fighting with phantoms, but they are always fighting not against the Catholic Church but against their own mistaken ideas of what we teach and believe. And when we point out the errors, they blame us.
When the conversation reaches this stage it's best to back off. When they want to learn what we teach, they will be taught. Until then let them repeat themselves. It does them no good and us no harm. And these matters are of too great consequence to waste much time in idle fencing. If Rnmomof7 prefers her idea of what we teach to the truth, it's okay. She's a good person; God is a gracious God; it'll all come out OK.
I find this very interesting. You say that without the Gospels, Scriptures are unsupportive. AND YET those same Gospels, that are evidently so revered and followed so fervently by Catholics, have absolutely NO words on Mary worship, (and yes, I can say WORSHIP since your own Pope referred it as worship), priests, praying for the dead, etc. NONE of it is found in the "Gospels".
I think the thesis is that 3 popes have encouraged or endorsed some elements of the charismatic renewal, therefore the whole thing is legit in the eyes of the Church.
I'm not sure that the alleged "endorsements" are any more real than the "endorsement" of medjugorje by JPII.
I see. No more endorsement than saying that the Church endorses the children of the Reformation by having them both agreeing on the name of Jesus...
ping to post
With all the writings posted to wade thru I do not see what Crones seems to see in them. The dots simply do not connect to Christ...but do appear to come predominately from catholic doctrine supported by various authors outside the scripture...which I understand, though not scripture, catholics believe are none the less reliable and true in their eyes.....but IMO does not hold to scripture teaching and the fact Jesus indeed was the last and great high Priest ....the Priesthood of men ended when the veil was rent.
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.