Catholics, Protestants, and Immaculate Mary

The Catholic Thing ^ | December 8, 2012 | David G. Bonagura, Jr.

[annalex]

I do understand that development, and thus it did not follow the distinction the use of hiereus consistently made in Scripture

Yes, the use of "πρεσβυτερος" is less consistent than "ιερευς" as the different books of the New Testament were written at different stages of the development of Christian priesthood. This is why Douay uses both "priest" and "ancient" to translate it, depending on context.

This dual use of "πρεσβυτερος", both familiar and sacramental has seeped into our times. We familiarly call our priests "father"; "papa" is Italian for "daddy"; in Russian an endearment form of "father", "батюшка" ('batyushka) is used for priests.

[annalex]

If it wasn't [a desire to malign Luther] then it would be hard to outdo what you did if it was!

LOL. I don't like the guy; but -- as became clear, I hope, in subsequent posts, -- the "marriage" episode is but an illustration of moral vandalism that Protestantism brought about, -- and Luther was, theologically, a very mild form of it. It shows how theological infection of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura, subtle distinction at first, eats away at the Christian spirit over time and renders modern Protestant communities fully foreign to the faith of the Apostles.

[annalex]

"They," as in Luther and Kathrina, which is how you made it sound, did not escape in a barrel

Luther's consort did, and he helped. It doesn't much matter what the detail was, the point is that it was furtive.

[annalex]

The Catholic church is not a measure of holiness either.

Individual Catholics, even some priests are far from holy. The Catholic Church is holy because she teaches Christ, Who is Holy, and seeks the company of saints who are holy. That is the difference: the Church is holy in her objective and her moral core; prosperity of the modern age does not have such intrinsic holiness ans moreover, Christ taught what a great danger prosperity is to a human spirit. "It is more difficult for a camel to pass through a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter heaven".

[annalex]

the terms *Catholic* and *Christian* are not necessarily interchangeable

No. Protestants are Christian as well, but just barely.

[annalex]

YOU WILL HAVE TO ANSWER

OK, OK. I will answer, surely -- looking forward to it.

I usually do not answer to purely emotional posts like your past few, so if you do not see an answer in the future, the lack of substance to which to answer is the reason. If I ever miss a question or a substantive objection, please point it out to me and I will correct the omission.

[WVKayaker]

"They," as in Luther and Kathrina, which is how you made it sound, did not escape in a barrel -dan

Luther's consort did, and he helped. It doesn't much matter what the detail was, the point is that it was furtive. -anna

Paul must have been a Protestant!

1 Cor. 7 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. -NIV

Anna, you are a good RC. I will pray for your salvation! You spout the "party line" as well as the SEIU, just by a different tune!

Martin Luther had a death warrant issued, due to his criticizing RC doctrines which are contrary to the Scriptures. The concept of sola's you spout are nothing but RC propaganda to keep the people ignorant of the truths in Scripture. If you take the Scriptures with a healthy dose of the Holy Spirit, you see Luther justified and your organization not even close.

I will close with an admonishment from Our Lord:

Mt. 23:27 -"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean.

That pretty much sums up your organization.

[annalex]

Post 666 sums up the RCC in a nutshell. A word means nothing except what the RCC says it means, except when it doesn’t!

In 666 I go over the usage of "πρεσβυτερος" in the original language of the New Testament and point out differences in context. Thank you for the compliment, and yes, it is a useful post to read. I also recommend 525 and 721 which complement 666. The analysis is plain linguistics. Here they are together:

in James 5:15 πρεσβυτερους της εκκλησιας are called annointing the sick; in Acts 20:17 St. Paul μετεκαλεσατο τους πρεσβυτερους της εκκλησιας; in 1 Timothy 4:14 we see that priesthood carried a special grace and that ordainment of a priest is a memorable event "μη αμελει του εν σοι χαρισματος ο εδοθη σοι δια προφητειας μετα επιθεσεως των χειρων του πρεσβυτεριου"; in Titus 1:5 Titus is instructed to "καταστησης κατα πολιν πρεσβυτερους". All these are usages, often further defined as "priests of the church", that do not apply to non-clerical roles. Other usages at least point to the select status of priests, such as "ο πρεσβυτερος γαιω τω αγαπητω" (3 John 1:1) points to priests being assigned to lay folks, themselves Christian; in 1 Timothey 5:19 priests are said to have a certain legal privilege.

***

There are usages in the New Testament where it is impossible to conclude from context that the person was specifically a priest. The best case would be the female form "πρεσβυτερας ως μητερας" (1 Timothy 5:2), but it could simply mean a priest's wife. There are others like "μετεκαλεσατο τους πρεσβυτερους της εκκλησιας" in Acts 20:17, where it demonstrably refers to a company of priests and bishops, as a part of the speech is addressed to only bishops. Lastly, in Acts 2:17, I agree, the usage is most likely "old" as opposed to young, -- but the whole passage is a quote from the Septuagint.

You need to understand that the language of the Church was just forming just as the priesthood was in the process of forming, and the word ordinarily meaning "elder" came to denote "priest". It is also true that "ιερευς", unlike "πρεσβυτερος", was a settled term, so we see no diverse usages. It was not my point that EVERY usage of "πρεσβυτερος" is provably a reference to a sacramental priest, -- certainly not those in the Gospels, -- but that whenever a function is attached to "πρεσβυτερος" is it either sacramental or separate from laity.

***

Yes, the use of "πρεσβυτερος" is less consistent than "ιερευς" as the different books of the New Testament were written at different stages of the development of Christian priesthood. This is why Douay uses both "priest" and "ancient" to translate it, depending on context.

This dual use of "πρεσβυτερος", both familiar and sacramental has seeped into our times. We familiarly call our priests "father"; "papa" is Italian for "daddy"; in Russian an endearment form of "father", "батюшка" ('batyushka) is used for priests.

[annalex]

Paul addressed those proud Romans [in Romans 8]

St. Paul addresses all of us all the time; is there a particular point you wished to make?

Your post lists the preceding post, 705 as the one you are responding to, so I really cannot take a guess what in my writings you find objectionable. Would you do me a favor: if you post to me, make the context of which you are responding clear to me and the reader, please. I am very familiar with all the New Testament scripture and the Letter to Romans in particular, and needless to say, find nothing that contradicts the Catholic Church in any of them.

[WVKayaker]

Actually, the entire chapter hits home in perfectly describing the RC Organization...

********* Matthew 23
New International Version 1984

1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

5“Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteriesa wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them ‘Rabbi.’

8“But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ.b 11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

13“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.c

15“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

16“Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ 17You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? 18You also say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.’ 19You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. 22And he who swears by heaven swears by God’s throne and by the one who sits on it.

23“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

25“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

27“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. 28In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

29“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!

33“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.

37“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. 38Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’d”

*********

For references:
http://niv.scripturetext.com/matthew/23.htm

[annalex]

What does being Catholic have to do about TRUTH? Nothing!

Looks like you are answering your own questions. I can contribute this: my question to you was about monastic rites and practices, and specifically the vows monks and nuns take. Yes, if you want to know anything about monasticism you should consult the great Christian traditions that foster monasticism, Western Catholicism and Easter Orthodoxy.

Broader, being Catholic is knowing Christ, Who alone is the Truth, in the company of great saints who went before us and are with us in heaven conversing with us. We are sure of our truths because we are in the company of Him the Truth, and the Way, and the Life.

[metmom]

Are you a mormon,methodist, lutheran, etc... or are you non denominational?

Just curious.

A non answer means you doubt your faith.

No, it doesn't.

A Christian's faith is not the denomination they belong to, because no denomination saves anyone.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Faith is the mechanism through which salvation is attained.

Faith is simply believing that what God said is true. If someone is putting their faith in the fact that they have faith to be saved, it's being put in the wrong thing.

Our faith is in Jesus, not our ability to believe.

Where a person chooses to worship or attend once their saved is simply a matter of preference and has no bearing on their getting saved or staying saved.

[WVKayaker]

...so I really cannot take a guess what in my writings you find objectionable.

Obtuse answer to a direct quote. I would expect nothing less.

Your entire premise is based on the teachings and traditions of your organization, not by any actual exegesis of the Word of God seen in Scripture...

I have also studied the Greek, and have come to the conclusion above! Any reasonable study of the Bible will result in different conclusions on many of your quotes. Have you read anything outside your organizations doctrinal tomes?

I won't bother to address you with anything but God's Word in plain English, using the most faithful (most accurate in modern terminology and exegesis) translation I have found, the New International Version. Your use of the Greek words show that you decide what it says in one place, then try to fit it into another place where it doesn't mean the same thing. How wrong is that? Totally!

This thread is about the honoring of Mary, as someone to pray to for help. Please show me that concept in the Scriptures. You can't, so you will again obfuscate and pontificate with waffle words and indoctrinated terminology. Good luck with that.

I will continue to pray for your salvation, but certainly not to a dead woman!

Your mileage may vary!

[CynicalBear]

>> you will quite possibly learn something about all these things as well.<<

Oh I have! It’s that I have reinforced my belief that the RCC is a legalistic cult not in line with scripture.

[CynicalBear]

Wow!! I get this incredible sense of total legalism in their approach to anything spiritual. Certainly the Catholic Church is built on legalism from what I can tell. Brings to mind the Pharisees who Jesus so clearly rebuked. Not a good sign if you ask me.

[CynicalBear]

Hey narses. Someone left a statue of Mary at the RV Park that I manage when they left so I promptly smashed it to pieces with a hammer. Have you seen fit to prove you are not an idolater by doing something like that or will you forever look at those statues and realize that you are?

[daniel1212]

RnMomof7:Did you know that the church teaches that the validity of the eucharist depends on the intention of the priest during the "consecration"

annalex; That would be Donatism, a heresy. The opposite is the Catholic teaching.

Natural Law: That is patently false. The Church long ago refuted the heresy of Donatism. Apparently it is another heresy held by some Protestants.

You have both plainly denied that Roman Catholic teaching requires proper intention for the validity of a sacrament (versus done in pretense), relegating it as Donatist heresy. However, while it is clear RC teaching does not invalidate a sacrament due to the character of the minister, and which refutes Donatism, Roman Catholic teaching upholds that the validity of the eucharist, or sacraments in general, requires the intention of the priest to do what the church does/performs.

Emphasis mine below. I posted much of this before but neglected to ping you both.

• DE DEFECTIBUS, Papal Bull decreed by Pope Saint Pius V in ratifying the Council of Trent

I - Defects of the Missing

1. The priest who is to celebrate Mass should take every precaution to make sure that none of the things required for celebrating the Sacrament of the Eucharist is missing. A defect may occur with regard to the matter to be consecrated, with regard to the form to be observed and with regard to the consecrating minister. There is no Sacrament if any of these is missing: the proper matter, the form, including the intention, and the priestly ordination of the celebrant.

VII - Defect of intention

23. The intention of consecrating is required. Therefore there is no consecration in the following cases: when a priest does not intend to consecrate but only to make a pretense;.. (http://www.dailycatholic.org/defectib.htm)

• Council of Trent:, If anyone says that in ministers, when they effect and confer the sacraments, there is not required at least the intention of doing what the Church does,[6] let him be anathema.” (Session VII, Canon 11; http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/trent7.htm).

• Aquinas: Consequently, his intention is required, whereby he subjects himself to the principal agent; that is, it is necessary that he intend to do that which Christ and the Church do. (Summa Theologica, Question 64., Article 8., Reply to Objection 1; http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4064.htm)

• The Catholic Encyclopedia>intention: The Church teaches very unequivocally that for the valid conferring of the sacraments, the minister must have the intention of doing at least what the Church does. This is laid down with great emphasis by the Council of Trent (sess. VII). The opinion once defended by such theologians as Catharinus and Salmeron that there need only be the intention to perform deliberately the external rite proper to each sacrament, and that, as long as this was true, the interior dissent of the minister from the mind of the Church would not invalidate the sacrament, no longer finds adherents. The common doctrine now is that a real [virtual at least] internal intention to act as a minister of Christ, or to do what Christ instituted the sacraments to effect, in other words, to truly baptize, absolve, etc., is required. (www.newadvent.org/cathen/08069b.htm)

• William Most: “For Mass or Sacrament to be valid, three things are needed — right matter, right form, right intention. Anyone can baptize, but other Sacraments need in general a Bishop or a Priest. (”Father” William Most, “Validity of Mass and Sacraments;” (www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=187)

• Catholic Encyclopedia>Sacraments:

“To be a minister of the sacraments under and with Christ, a man must act as a man, i.e. as a rational being; hence it is absolutely necessary that he have the intention of doing what the Church does. This was declared by Eugene IV in 1439 (Denzinger-Bannwart, 695) and was solemnly defined in the Council of Trent (Sess.VII, can.II). ..for it is by the intention, says St. Thomas (III:64:8, ad 1) that a man subjects and unites himself to the principal agent (Christ). Moreover, by rationally pronouncing the words of the form, the minister must determine what is not sufficiently determined or expressed by the matter applied, e.g. the significance of pouring water on the head of the child (Summa Theologiæ III.64.8). - www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm

• CCC, 1256 [on baptism]: The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon.57 In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize58 , by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.59. (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm)

• The Catholic Encyclopedia>Baptism (regarding baptism by “heretics”):

“Practically, converts in the United States are almost invariably baptized either absolutely or conditionally, not because the baptism administered by heretics is held to be invalid, but because it is generally impossible to discover whether they had ever been properly baptized. Even in cases where a ceremony had certainly been performed, reasonable doubt of validity will generally remain, on account of either the intention of the administrator or the mode of administration...Still...if the proper matter and form be used and the one conferring the sacrament really “intends to perform what the Church performs” the baptism is undoubtedly valid.”

The minister’s insufficient faith concerning baptism never of itself makes baptism invalid.

Catholic Encyclopedia>Sacraments: Any one, even a pagan, can baptize, provided that he use the proper matter and pronounce the words of the essential form, with the intention of doing what the Church does. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm)

• PONTIFICIUM CONSILIUM: Sufficient intention in a minister who baptizes is to be presumed, unless there is serious ground for doubting that the minister intended to do what the Church does. (PONTIFICIUM CONSILIUM AD CHRISTIANORUM UNITATEM FOVENDAM;

DIRECTORY FOR THE APPLICATION OF

PRINCIPLES AND NORMS ON ECUMENISM; www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930325_directory_en.html)

• Canon 869 of the 1983 of canon law:

§2 Those baptized in a non-Catholic ecclesial community are not to be baptized conditionally unless there is a serious reason for doubting the validity of their baptism, on the ground of the matter or the form of words used in the baptism, or of the intention of the adult being baptized or of that of the baptizing minister. (www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P2W.HTM)

In addition, besides the intent of the minister, for valid reception RC teachings holds that some intention is necessary, if not attention,(except in children who have not yet reached the age of reason, or the insensible. Attention is also needed for licit reception of some sacraments):

• “...for the valid reception of any sacrament except the Eucharist, it is necessary that they have the intention of receiving it...”

“By the intention man submits himself to the operation of the sacraments which produce their effects ex opere operato [by the act itself], hence attention is not necessary for the valid reception of the sacraments. One who might be distracted, even voluntarily, during the conferring, e.g. of Baptism, would receive the sacrament validly.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia>Sacraments)

[daniel1212]

You may find this pertinent:” http://peacebyjesuscom.blogspot.com/2011/09/contradictions-in-roman-catholicism.html

[daniel1212]

Thus while at one time lay RCs were forbidden to engage in debates as these, now they may.