Its not just you, it is many others as well, and i ping others who have said they want to be pinged to threads of interest. Its more an evangelical thing. And i will also ping those who responded to the same post i did, which should cut down in saying the same things to each. ..
I have never posted anything, there is just as much protestant stuff posted here except you guys have hundreds of divergent sects.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. But i rarely see you on these RF threads. Go do a search even on the Catholic keyword and see what you find
No, men who know a heck of lot more than you do. When you say, know better than God, that implies you read the Bible and you know what God says. That is the of sola scriptura married to sola my own ego!!!
Since i never said i know better than God, but that this is what you are saying by laboring to justify titling presbuteros priests when out of the over 150 times archiereus/hiereus occurs in the NT then the Holy Spirit never gives them that title! Which is based upon the cultic premise of Rome's assured veracity, versus the NT church, or even the local SBC.
Thus the question why would a person want to defend kind of cultic presumption, unless it is their security?
I do accept the magisterium as the having the teaching authority. The Alternative is for me to list to who, you????
No, you do not simply accept the magisterium as the having the teaching authority, which Westminster itself upholds, but you uphold implicit assent of faith to a magisterium based upon the premise of assured perpetual infallibility, supposing this is necessary and promised to the stewards of Scripture for assurance of Truth. Which as said, is not how the church began, and which can be explained further if desired.
Yes it is. So we can play that game all night, You say No, I say yes, should we make a Beatles tune
You seem to be getting desperate. So your argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for valid assurance of Truth and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith. (Jn. 14:16; 16:13; Mt. 16:18)
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God?
Thus lacking both any Scriptural record or from early testimony, it is yet asserted, "The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
As for heresies, again, every heresy starts with someone who thinks they Know better and it starts with someone thinking the Holy Spirit inspired them to interpret the Bible correctly.
That explains Rome exactly, except she makes it not only individual (the pope) but promotes corporate error.
Now to come back to Romans 15:16,my Catholic NAB, RSV and Navarre Bible, all translate it as “priestly service for the Gospel” . The Navarre Bible has Jerome’s Latin translation along with it and word used there is “oblatio” which is associated with a solemn offering to God in the context of a Liturgical service. The English word “Oblation” which was directly derived from Oblatio refers to an offering or sacrificial offering and the term refers to the gift to be offered and the act of offering at Mass...
So all this to confess the word priest is not there in Romans 15:16 and that hiereus is not the root word used, and that offering sacrifices to God is not a unique function of NT pastors or priests, the latter being described as men who daily "offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins." But which is not the charge given to presbuteros/episkopos, but "Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine." (1 Timothy 4:13) "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine." (2 Timothy 4:2) "we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word." (Acts 6:4) "But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;" (Titus 1:3) And the difference btwn the two names reflects the difference, but Rome turns presbuteros into ritualist whose main function is dispensing human flesh for eternal life.
So Romans 15:16 in every Catholic Bible I have uses “priestly service of the Gospel”
Sorry, that part is correct, for as seen by my first reply on this, i was looking at the word for "offering," "prosphora," in "the oblation of the Gentiles" in the DRB, not the word "hierourgeō," (from a compound of sacred toil) rendered "sanctifying" the gospel of God in the DRB, and "ministering" in the KJV, which is what the NAB etc. derived "priestly service" from. In both cases hiereus is not there, nor as the root, but while it may be used all believers are called priests and offer sacrifices, even their own bodies to God. (Rn. 12:1) When the Holy Spirit makes such a manifest consistent distinction btwn hiereus and presbuteros/episkopos then it is presumptuous to ignore or negate it. But which befits Rome.
Here is a commentary from Cambridge and I assume Anglican Divines which I have in Quotes.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
“16. the minister] The Gr. word (not the same as that in e.g. Romans 15:8,) is the original of our word liturgy; and is the same as in Romans 13:6; Php 2:25; Hebrews 1:7; Hebrews 8:2; &c. The word in Biblical Greek has a frequent sacerdotal reference; which is certainly present here, as the rest of the verse shews. For the word rendered “ministering” just below is lit. “doing priest’s-work with;” and it is followed, in the next clause, by “the offering-up of the Gentiles.” The whole passage is strikingly pictorial and figurative; representing the Gospel as the sacerdotal rule; the Apostle as the sacrificing priest; and the converts from heathenism as the victims of the sacrifice. A passage of somewhat similar imagery is Php 2:17, where the Gr. of “service” is kindred to the Gr. of “minister” here. There (in Bp Lightfoot’s words) “the Philippians are the priests; their faith (or their good works springing from their faith) is the sacrifice; St Paul’s life-blood the accompanying libation.”
It is clear that the Apostle here speaks of himself as a Sacrificer in a sense wholly figurative; and this passage and Romans 1:9 (where see note,) are the only examples of his application of the sacrificial idea, in even a figurative sense, to himself. Dr Hodge remarks that we here see the true nature of the priesthood which belongs to the Christian ministry: “It is by the preaching of the Gospel to bring men to offer themselves as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God.” See Romans 12:1.”
Of course, at the end, they of course say it is “figurative” go figure, whenever something does not fit Protestant doctrine, the literal all of a sudden becomes figurative.
The structure of the text and the word use do connote priestly ministry and as I said earlier, a the Greek root from where we get the English “Liturgy” is also in the text.
I will not get into your all of sudden I am a former Catholic and reject the magisterium and I read the bible and determine for myself what is correct doctrine. As GK Chesterterton basically put it, a Catholic comes to the conclusion of the unthinkable proposition that there are those that have come before us who are smarter in matters of Theology. And in another place he states [I am paraphrasing], Tradition is the Democracy of the Dead, it means that we take that what is good from our ancestors and let it guide us rather than being ruled by an arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be alive with us at the same time. Now, I am not calling you arrogant, I think you are misguided and incorrect, but you, as all Protestants ultimately rely on your own reading of the scripture to determine what is orthodox or not.
So for me, nothing anyone living today, despite what they think they read in Scripture will cause me to reject the Council of Nicea 325AD [Condemned Arius and declared Christ Con-substantial with the Father], Constantinopile 381AD [condemned the Macedonians and declared the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and Son], Ephesus 431AD [Condemned the Nestorians {and Pelagians] and declared Mary {Theotokos” or Mother of God, Chalcedon 451AD [Condemned the Monophysites], Constantinopile 553 [the 3 Chapters], Constantinopile III 680 [Condemned Monothelitism and censured Pope Honorius], Nicea II 787 [condemned Iconoclasm as a heresy against the Incarnation; lots of Inconoclasts here among the Protestant FR infantry] and Constantionpile IV, Lateran I, II, and III and IV [1123, 1139, 1179, 1215] along with Lyons 1 and 2, Vienne, Constance, Basle/Ferrara/Florence, Lateran V, Trent 1545-1563. Vatican I and yes, Vatican II, although nothing dogmatic came out of that council and whether it was a good council or bad is still to be seen. As Pope Benedict noted, we have to admit that in historical analysis, some Councils proved to be a waste of time and did not get the results hoped for. I think the attempt at reununion with the Orthodox was one he was referring to [Basle-Ferrara-Florence] 1431-1445.
Now, I accept those councils because I believe Christ sent the Holy Spirit to guide His Church to teach orthodoxy and to be a visible sign of that orthodoxy down thru time till the 2nd coming.
End of discussion.
And one last thing, the Protestant litany of pings and why I ask which Protestant sect you, or other protestants here belong to is because deep down, once you all disclose which sect you belong to, you all will break your alliance against us “Catlicks”, to use a little southern yahoo English that I have run across in my life, and turn your “allegorical” war with each other. Case in point is in this thread where it appears one guy disclosed himself to be a Reformed protestant and one a “Oneness Pentecostal”, a movement that comes out of the broader Protestant Pentecostal movement of various sects.
I am sitting here eating popcorn and watching it all play out, but of course, I will have to say on this particular theological question, the Reformed guy’s views match mine as a Catholic much more than of course the Oneness Pentecostal.
And no I did not ping either one because I am not looking to get into their tit for tat. If they ask my opinion, I will give it.
Daniel1212:
I apologize for the short post again, but I do have a commentary specifically on Romans by Father Byrne, SJ [Jesuit] and while I am not a big fan of the Jesuits for the most part, they do a good job with scholarship even though they push the envelope a little too much for me [I was taught by Dominicans]. In this commentary, Fr. Byrne does not Paul uses sacerdotal type language [Minister is translated from Leitourgos, which as I noted earlier is where Liturgy comes from], serving as a priest of God [or priestly service of the Gospel] is from the word “Hierogon” and offering from “prosphora”. So while the word Hierus was not used, the word “hierogon” is derived from its root. I think you would have to agree with it, even though you may go with a totally allegorical interpretation, while I would see both allegory and literal priestly connotations.