Replies

You assume that a definite chronology can be found in the New Testament, that any true development is one that is based on terms used in a canonical text.

Indeed. Considering the scope and the details the Holy Spirit provides even on lesser things, to never mention a successor to James, or manifest preparation for Peter whose manner of death was even prophesied, let alone churches not being told and reminded to look to Peter in Rome as their supreme infallible singular head, while clearly providing for ordinations of presbyteros and their requirements, is, among other absences, incongruous.

As to a hierarchy, one thing is sure that under the New Testament that it would not be based on blood-lines but on the relationship between the Apostles and the men who succeeded them as leaders of the Church.

Indeed, faith relationship, while Rome clearly fails of both the requirements to be an apostle (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1) and their credentials. (2Cor. 6:4-10; 12:12)

Instead, her claim to validity rests upon the premise of her perpetual magisterial veracity, in which tradition, history and Scripture can only mean what she decrees in any conflict.

For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

Thus the classic recourse of Manning,

It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,”

Assuming that “Hebrews” was address to Jewish priests who had join the Church,

Which is an unwarranted assumption, as it simply reads like a general exhortation to Hebrew believers in general, including to obey their leaders.

that is what is meant by speaking of the Christ as being a priest in the line of Melchizedek rather than a Levite. The hierarchy then is in linear succession to Jesus as ministers of his sacrifice.

But in keeping with the other contrasts, one distinctive class of sacerdotal priests is not replaced with another, but Christ offered upon the perfect atonement for sin "once" "for ever," and sat down, with He alone being our priest. While the only priesthood is that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6), who are all called to sacrifice - the only Christians called to do so in Hebrews.

By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name. (Hebrews 13:15)

And who have direct access in Christ into he holy of holies, (Heb. 10:19) with the only Heavenly intercessor being the perfect victorious Christ, who ever lives to do so. (1Tim. 2:5; Heb. 7:25)

How we are to take this, then, depends on how we view the Eucharist and its celebration, which ceremonially replaces the ancient animal sacrifices

Which sacerdotal priesthood was a later development, and it does not replace the ancient animal sacrifices as a literal sacrifice. Despite for Caths it being the the source and summit of the Christian life," in which "the work of our redemption is accomplished," around which all else revolves, and engaging in this sacrificial offering being the primary function of NT pastors titled "hiereus"="priests," and being the essential to obtain spiritual and eternal life, instead in the life of the church (interpretive of the gospels) the Lord's supper is only manifestly described in one epistle.

And in which (1Cor. 11:20-34 ) the Lord's supper is a commemoration of the Lord's death in which the church is to remember how the Lord's body was broken and His sinless blood poured out for them as a body. (Acts 20:28) And thus they declare/proclaim His death for the body of Christ by manifesting that caring love for each other as being part of that blood-bought body in sharing food during that actual communal meal, the "feast of charity."

And thus by going ahead and eating while others had none, shaming them that had not and were hungry, then the apostle said they were not actually coming together to eat the Lord's supper, but their own. Thus they were not to come to fill their belly, but to effectually recognize each other as being part of that body for whom Christ died, which is the body was the focus here, and in the next chapters.

And which view is the only one that is consistent with with the rest of Scripture, as recently once again shown briefly.

You assume that a definite chronology can be found in the New Testament, that any true development is one that is based on terms used in a canonical text. Indeed. Considering the scope and the details the Holy Spirit provides even on lesser things, to never mention a successor to James, or manifest preparation for Peter whose manner of death was even prophesied, let alone churches not being told and reminded to look to Peter in Rome as their supreme infallible singular head, while clearly providing for ordinations of presbyters and their requirements, is, among other absences, incongruous. The Holy Spirit, which is to say the word of God as discerned by.revealed to the author of the text, omits to tell us much that we might expect to read and many things that mean nothing to us. That is because these letters were not addressed to us but to certain living and breathing persons who were known and loved by him, concerning matters whose significance often escapes us. He was indeed, like the prophets of all addressing us as well, and our descendents without knowing it. But he did speak as a man among other men and women at a point of time in history. So we must accept that there is much we don’t “get”. As to a hierarchy, one thing is sure that under the New Testament that it would not be based on blood-lines but on the relationship between the Apostles and the men who succeeded them as leaders of the Church. Indeed, faith relationship, while Rome clearly fails of both the requirements to be an apostle (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1) and their credentials. (2Cor. 6:4-10; 12:12) Instead, her claim to validity rests upon the premise of her perpetual magisterial veracity, in which tradition, history and Scripture can only mean what she decrees in any conflict. For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. Thus the classic recourse of Manning, It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” “Rome,” which is to say the papacy, rests its authority on Peter’s commission’s in Matthew and In John. The way that authority has been exercised was a not fixed and has taken different shapes over the centuries. Peter, of course, was no Roman Patriarch but an Apostle of Christ. The juridical trappings, the rest, are historical accidents, but much the same can be said about the manner in which the Law of Moses was executed over the centuries. The life of the Church like the life of the Jewish people has been shaped by concrete decisions, including many mistakes. What endures are the promises. God will not break his covenant with the Jews, so in that respect that people are infallible and the Torah as an everlasting statement of God’s will. We believe that in Christ that covenant met its fulfillment, that in the Church he continues his pact not only with them but in the other nations as well. He promises that the Church not fail despite all appearances, that we shall endure to the Last Days. The papacy is an instrument in his hands and that “Rome” has endured, even as the other patriarches have been so diminished, ought to be considered as a sign that there ought to be a place where the oneness of he Church is displayed. Assuming that “Hebrews” was address to Jewish priests who had join the Church, Which is an unwarranted assumption, as it simply reads like a general exhortation to Hebrew believers in general, including to obey their leaders. Again, it cabe be read that way only because we don’t know for sure who its audience was, but some scholars surmise it was the priests given that speaks of Christ as priest. that is what is meant by speaking of the Christ as being a priest in the line of Melchizedek rather than a Levite. The hierarchy then is in linear succession to Jesus as ministers of his sacrifice. But in keeping with the other contrasts, one distinctive class of sacerdotal priests is not replaced with another, but Christ offered upon the perfect atonement for sin "once" "for ever," and sat down, with He alone being our priest. While the only priesthood is that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6), who are all called to sacrifice - the only Christians called to do so in Hebrews. By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name. (Hebrews 13:15) And who have direct access in Christ into he holy of holies, (Heb. 10:19) with the only Heavenly intercessor being the perfect victorious Christ, who ever lives to do so. (1Tim. 2:5; Heb. 7:25) But Christ is our high priest forever. That means that his Sacrifice is always “lit” for our behalf before the Father. How we are to take this, then, depends on how we view the Eucharist and its celebration, which ceremonially replaces the ancient animal sacrifices Which sacerdotal priesthood was a later development, and it does not replace the ancient animal sacrifices as a literal sacrifice. Despite for Caths it being the the source and summit of the Christian life,” in which "the work of our redemption is accomplished," around which all else revolves, and engaging in this sacrificial offering being the primary function of NT pastors titled "hiereus"="priests," and being the essential to obtain spiritual and eternal life, instead in the life of the church (interpretive of the gospels) the Lord's supper is only manifestly described in one epistle. I said ceremonially it replaces the animal sacrifices. And that is to remind us that the sacrifices offered in the Temple, while not efficacious, were pleasing to God, and a measure of the Jews faithfulness to their Lord God. The “Breaking of the Bread” was an allusion to the Eucharist. The lack of any order of service in the Bible makes it all he most impressive to me that the formula of institution was repeated in the three synoptic gospel and more liturgically by Paul. And in which (1Cor. 11:20-34 ) the Lord's supper is a commemoration of the Lord's death in which the church is to remember how the Lord's body was broken and His sinless blood poured out for them as a body. (Acts 20:28) And thus they declare/proclaim His death for the body of Christ by manifesting that caring love for each other as being part of that blood-bought body in sharing food during that actual communal meal, the "feast of charity." And thus by going ahead and eating while others had none, shaming them that had not and were hungry, then the apostle said they were not actually coming together to eat the Lord's supper, but their own. Thus they were not to come to fill their belly, but to effectually recognize each other as being part of that body for whom Christ died, which is the body was the focus here, and in the next chapters. And which view is the only one that is consistent with with the rest of Scripture, as recently once again shown briefly. You pass over what comes before, which is an exhortation not to eat the food at pagan sacrifices. So his remarks about the Lord’s Supper are freighted by this reference to the eating of the flesh of sacrificed animals.