Posted on 10/28/2011 6:59:29 AM PDT by markomalley
There you again projecting a preconceived notion or belief into what has been written.
You must read your compatriots' posts a little more closely.
>> Paul is an also. Not a primary.<<
There were no “primaries”. That notion was invented by the guys hoping to wear the pointy hat in Rome.
That notion was invented by Christians who think that Christ supersedes any man.
>> They were directed to the churches under Paul's jurisdiction<<
Jurisdiction? LOL We are no longer under the law. That language rings hollow to Spirit filled Christians.
I suggest that you reread both Acts and Paul's Epistles. Paul had absolute jurisdiction over his churches and wrote in that manner.
Neither do Catholics. However the Council of Nicea obviously felt there was sufficient reason to include them.....COULD IT BE THE HOLY SPIRIT
Isn’t THAT SPECIAL!!!
Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
No works there.
"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life." (John 5:24)
Hmm, still no works.
Hebrews 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Still no works. Seems in that one the “priest” doesn’t help much either.
1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one."
Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,"
Rom. 5:1, "therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,"
Wow! Still no works.
Romans 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. 31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
Well, finally! We found those who rely on works. I wonder how that verse affects those who think they have replaced Israel. Hmmmm.
I suppose they will have to answer for themselves. Wouldn’t be fair for me to answer for them.
Martin Luther had a fascination with toilet functions.
Yes it does. To bad the RCC screwed up so bad by going back under the law.
>>It does not include those who create their own faith by gazing at the content of their navels.<<
I don’t suppose it does. You must have met people who “gaze into their navels”. I haven’t nor have I accused anyone of doing that. That’s a nice tactic from those who run out of support for their faith but it sure looks immature to me.
Again, the Commandments of Christ are key to understanding this.
I suppose they will have to answer for themselves. Wouldn’t be fair for me to answer for them.
I have no idea how anyone including them can adequately answer to the Judge for their position.
And Calvin was a party pooper
“confirmed”? Which apostle “confirmed” the role of any Christian as a priest other than as I mentioned?
Yes it does. To bad the RCC screwed up so bad by going back under the law.
Actually, we went under the Commandments of Christ, not the Law.
>>It does not include those who create their own faith by gazing at the content of their navels.<<
I don’t suppose it does. You must have met people who “gaze into their navels”. I haven’t nor have I accused anyone of doing that. That’s a nice tactic from those who run out of support for their faith but it sure looks immature to me.
It sure is immature. I have met many. When I question in depth, they retreat to the point where they in effect admit to this strategy. There appear to be only two positions: submission to the Church, or submission to the theology of the moment. The Reformation promoted the theology of the moment.
What utter nonsense. I would point to the theology of the moment the CC used to placate the pagans in Ephesus when they decided to add the “queen of heaven” idea replacing Diana who the pagans worshiped. Much easier to get the pagans to come to “church” if you have their “queen of heaven” mantra to cling to.
Let me post the relevant article from the Vatican.
Priests in the New Testament
The II Vatican Council (cf. LG 28 and PO 2) based its doctrinal explanations about the priesthood of the New Testament on the concept of “consecration and mission” which the Lord Jesus claims for himself according to John 10:36:
«Yet to someone whom the Father has consecrated and sent into the world you say, “You are blaspheming” because I said “I am son of God!” ».
Consecration, sanctification (”agiazo”): “Christ” comes from the Greek translation of the Hebrew expression “Messiah” which means “anointed”. It does not become the proper name of Jesus, if not because he fulfills perfectly the divine mission for which he stands. In fact, in Israel those were anointed in the name of God who were consecrated to him for a mission, which he had entrusted them. This was the case with the kings (cf 1 Sam 9:16; 10:1; 16:1.12-13; 1 Kings 1:39), priests (Ez 29:7; Lv 8:12) and in rare cases with prophets (1 Kings 19:16). Therefore, the Messiah had to be the event “par excellence” as the Lord would have sent him to definitely establish his kingdom (cf Sal 2:2; At 4:26-27). The Messiah had to be anointed through the Spirit of the Lord (cf. Is 11:2) simultaneously as king and as priest (cf. Zc 4:14; 6:13), but also as prophet (cf Is 61:1; Lc 4:16-21). Jesus has fulfilled the messianic hope of Israel in his threefold function of priest, prophet and king (CCC 436); cf. The angel who proclaimed the birth of Jesus to shepherds at the birth of the Messiah promised to Israel (cf. Lc 2:11), his conception as “holy” (Lc 1:35) in the virginal womb of Mary. Joseph was called by God to “take Mary as his wife”; she was pregnant, “having conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit” (Mt 1:21), so that Jesus, “called Christ” would be born of the wife of Joseph in the messianic line of David (Mt Mt 1:16; cf Rm 1:3; 2 Tim 2:8; Ap 22:16).
Mission (”apostello”) is an “apostolate”. “The messianic consecration of Jesus shows his divine mission. On the other hand, it is what his own name indicates, because Christ’s name means the one who has anointed and he who himself has been anointed. The one who has anointed is the Father, the anointed one was the Son and He anointed in the Holy Spirit who is the anointing ( Saint Irenaeus of Lyon, Adversus haereses 3, 18, 3). His eternal messianic consecration was revealed during the time of his life on earth in the moment of baptism by John, when God “consecrated him in the Holy Spirit and in power” (At 10:38), “so that he should become known to Israel” (John 1:31) as its Messiah. His deeds and his words will reveal him as “the holy one of God” (Mc 1:24; John 6:69; At 3:14). (CCC 438)
Such consecration-mission assures that in the New Testament there remains a unique “high priest according the order of Melchisedek” (Heb 5:10; 6:20), “holy, innocent, immaculate” (Heb 10:14), who “by a unique offer has made perfect forever those who are sanctified” (Heb 10:14), by the unique sacrifice of his cross (cf CCC 1545).
“Made perfect” (teleioo) is a word with profound significance: it means at the same time to perfect, fulfill and consecrate-sanctify, translating a Hebrew word which used to mean the anointing of priests of the old covenant and the consecration of the temple; it’s the last word of Jesus on the cross: “It is fulfilled” (John 19:30).
(Among the Fathers, already Theophill underlined the priestly dimension of “consecration” in John 10:36: sanctificavit eum, hoc est sanxit sacrificari pro mundo. In quo ostendit se non esse deum sicut ceteri; nam salvum facere mundum, divinum opus est, non autem hominis deificati per gratiam).
Therefore, Jesus has a special anointing by the Holy Spirit (cf Mt 3:16; Lc 4:18; At 4:27; 10:38) in which he allows his whole mystical body to participate: in him all christians become a “holy and royal priesthood to offer offerings to God through Jesus Christ and to proclaim the miracles of who has called them from darkness into his wonderful light (cf 1 Pt 2:5.9). As highpriest and mediator he has made of the Church “a kingdom of priests for God his Father” (Ap 1:6; cf Ap 5:9-10). These texts are the bases for the doctrine of the “common priesthood”.
But with the intention of forming the christians into one body, in which “all members do not have the same function” (Rm 12:4), on the evening of his Resurrection, he sent especially the Apostles, in the same way he was sent by the Father (cf John 20:21); from here originates the doctrine of the “special mandate” of the hierarchy in the Church.
“Then, through the Apostles themselves, he made their successors, the bishops, sharers in his consecration and mission, duly entrusted in varying subordinate degree the office of ministry (according the formula of the II Vatican Council, LG 28 and PO 2); the doctrine of the apostolic succession is a historical fact that is found only in the Catholic Church and in the Orthodox Church; it enables to recognize in each ordained minister someone who is inserted in a chain of transmission - uninterrupted since the days of the Apostles - through the gesture of the imposition of hands, by a spiritual gift which enables him to act in the name of Christ the head. No one could pretend to take the place of Christ who had abolished all the sacrifices and who has become the only High Priest. This is the reason why this gift is considered as initiated by Christ himself and why it has become part of the sacraments of the New Covenant.
- The Apostles handed on in their writings and by their spoken word (cf 2 Thess 2:15) everything what they had received from the Word of God made flesh.
“Give the things you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses to trustworthy persons who are capable of teaching also others” (2 Tim 2:2).
- Such mission of “maintaining the deposit” (1Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:14) must be exercised by the successors of the Apostles who have been charged through the imposition of hands ( 1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6; 1 Tim 5:22). Those who are responsible bear the title of “vigilants” (in Greek “episcopi”, from which the word “bishop” comes) or “elder” (in Greek “presbiteri”). Also the letters of Saint James (5:14) and of Saint Peter (1 Pet 5:1-14) testify to the existence of “presbyters” as heads of the communities.
As a matter of fact, all this shows us a time very near to Christ: summer of the year 56 for the letter of James and approximately the year 58 for 1 Tim. The Acts of the Apostles speak twice about the rite of the imposition of hands (Acts 6:6 and 13:3; cf also 14:23), testifying to the presence of “presbyters” at Ephesus in the year 58 (At 20:17). They were also called “episcopi” (Acts 20:28). The letter of 1 Peter used the letters to Titus and to Timothy; the letter itself made reference to the letter to the Hebrews which was written before the destruction of the temple in the year 70. Therefore it seems that the writings which speak about “presbyters” were redacted exactly when James, Paul and Peter were still alive.
Such scriptural approach to consecration and mission which was put into new light by the II Vatican Council clarifies simultaneously the exercise of the ministry: the apostolic minister, if we consider well the doctrine of the New Testament and especially the letters of Paul, puts together in harmony two concepts of the priesthood, of “presbyters” which sometimes were opposed to one another: in effect, the true apostolate and the true adoration of the Father are strictly combined and permanently connected in such a way that these two aspects of the life of priests cannot exist one without the other. Saint Paul himself declares that when he proclaims the gospel he directs to God an act of adoration: when he praises him “among the gentiles” he sings “to the glory of his name” (cf Rom 15:9) (cf Introduction to the Decree Presbyterorum Ordinis).
Such an approach clarifies simultaneously one of the fundamental duties of those who participate according to this special modality of the priesthood and of the mandate of Christ: if the imposition of hands offers to those who receive it a “spiritual gift” which enables them to exercise their mission, it is their duty “to keep alive the gift the Lord has placed in you” (1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6) through ongoing formation (cf Exhort. Pastores dabo vobis 70).
Correct. He was known as the farting friar.
Most of it is NOT inaccurate. SOURCE PLEASE.
What utter nonsense.
Utter nonsense back to you. Martin Luther himself recognized that 'every milkmaid' could create her own theology.
I would point to the theology of the moment the CC used to placate the pagans in Ephesus when they decided to add the “queen of heaven” idea replacing Diana who the pagans worshiped. Much easier to get the pagans to come to “church” if you have their “queen of heaven” mantra to cling to.
Would you have any documentation on this event? I am happy to see that you are now recognizing the Catholic Church as the Church of the New Testament, by the way. We may be closer in belief than I formerly believed.
I have always said the CC started to usurp the true church back in about 200AD. Check the council of Ephesus to find out about the “queen of heaven”.
>> We may be closer in belief than I formerly believed.<<
Not if it includes much of what the CC teaches.
If you haven’t checked the accuracy of the Apocrypha with history I’m not the one to start teaching you. If you follow a book that you haven’t even checked on the accuracy with history given all the accounts of it’s inaccuracies I would simply suggest you do some research.
Not if it includes much of what the CC teaches.
I suspect that much of your knowledge is suspect. Perhaps this dialogue may lead to further development.
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.