Random West Mall Postings

their

 

I have thoroughly enjoyed these exchanges.

 

When we receive Jesus Christ, body, blood, soul, and divinity at Mass, we aren't just taking a sip of wine and eating bread. We are participating in his sacrifice for us, and in turn, we are (or should be) offering ourselves, body, blood, soul, and our fragile, broken humanity back to Him.

You Protestants think it is just a symbolic remembrance, just bread and wine to mimic the last supper. It is much, much more than that, and I pray one day you and your Protestant brethren will come to understand it.

 

I am an idiot. I admit it.

 

I really like that last phrase, "we are offering ourselves". Protestants should be doing that too regardless of what theology you hold about the elements.

Lutherans, Episcopals, and maybe Presbyterians hold a very similar view to what you are saying at the beginning of the paragraph. They believe Jesus' presence exists within the elements but not that the elements become those things in totality. I come from a more Methodist/Baptist background where is taught to be a memorial. In that memorial, self-reflection and worship is a part of it too.

I think low church Protestants should put more emphasis on communion and teach more about how to do it properly. I think that is important, but I don't feel like I am missing anything when not holding to trans- or consubstantiation.

I appreciate your viewpoint though.

 

@Monahorns

PART 1:

You replied directly to my post containing several direct quotes from the early Christians and you called it "vomit". I only added maybe a sentence of my own.


I usually don't reply to your drive-bye posts here because I believe you are theologically poor, but remember, you replied directly to me when I was talking to someone else. Thats why I'm taking you to task.

Provide a source of Catholic killings and I'll be more than happy to discuss. I already posted to someone else that church history has been ugly, so I'm not afraid to discuss anything. And it's real easy for one from a member of a church that was no where to be found in the time of the Apostles, being martyred, canonizing the Bible, addressing heresies, spreading the Gospel, persecutions, etc. and attack those who lived it. I'd love to know what sect of Protestantism you belong to. Care to share?

A dictionary isn't a source to beliefs of early Christians, for honest people like Protestant JND Kelly, anyway. Which by the way, his quote was included in your kind "vomit" comment.

 

PART II:

You said: There has been error since the beginning. You know how you divide truth from error? The Bible. When you take communion what sacrifice are you making? Sacrifice is about you giving your property to God. When you eat bread and drink a sip of wine what sacrifice are you making? You aren't. You are remembering the sacrifice that Jesus made of His body and blood on the cross. Maybe the Church Fathers were thinking about that sacrifice when they took communion. That would make sense.

I'm actually proud of you on this one. You're admitting you don't know what the Church Fathers were thinking when speaking and writing about "sacrifice" and only guessing what you personally think makes sense. That I can respect. Sincere and honest.

The Bible, you say? Great! I was waiting to get into the Bible once we cleared up the historic canonization of scripture by the Catholic Church. After all, we have to trust the Bible before one can believe it, right? Here we go!



Lets start with OT and backstroke into the NT:
It’s a common mistake to equate sacrifice with death (by many not just Protestants) to understand "sacrifice". It's essential that we understand the biblical picture of a sacrifice...It is always a gift, it is not always a killing. This is why Scripture can speak of a sacrifice of praise (Hos. 4:12) and the sacrifice of thanksgiving (Ps. 50:14).

Besides offering lambs, the Israelites also made grain offerings, drink offerings, etc. One sacrifice was called the wave offering, and this was an unbloody sacrifice (same language used by many Church Fathers) where the Jews would wave a gift before God to symbolically give it to him. In Numbers 8:9–15, the whole Hebrew tribe of Levi was presented to God as a wave offering. Similarly the Mass is an offering, a sacrifice, where Christ is presented before the Father.

Christ’s bloody sacrifice on Calvary took place once, and it will never be repeated. To repeat his sacrifice would be to imply that the original offering was defective or insufficient, like the animal sacrifices of the OT that could never take away sins. Jesus’ offering was perfect, efficacious, and eternal. So we can put to rest that attack, not saying necessarily by you, but many others.

But there's an eternal aspect, too. Jesus is eternally a priest, and a priest’s very nature is to offer sacrifice. In the case of Christ, the eternal sacrifice that he offers is himself. This is why he appears in the book of Revelation as a lamb, standing as though he had been slain (Rev. 5:6). Jesus doesn't need to suffer again but for all eternity he re-presents himself to God appealing to the work of the cross, interceding for us (Rom 8:34), and bringing the graces of Calvary to us.

The Mass is a participation in this heavenly offering. Christ becomes present on the altar and offers himself to God as a living sacrifice. Just like He said we must do, as part of a religious ceremony. Read the Church Fathers. Read how many died because they believed exactly this. None of them ever denied the true meaning of the word sacrifice, and they were brutally murdered for it. They would not have died for a symbol. Like the Mass, Christ words at the Last Supper are words of sacrifice, “This is my body . . . this is my blood . . . given up for you.” So, the Mass is not repeating the murder of Jesus, but is taking part in what never ends: the offering of Christ to the Father for our sake (Heb 7:25, 9:24). After all, if Calvary didn’t get the job done, then the Mass won’t help. Its because the death of Christ was sufficient that the Mass is celebrated. It does not add to or take away from the work of Jesus...it is the work of Jesus. Historically and more importantly, biblically, Christ undeniably commands us to eat His flesh, brink His blood. Nowhere ever is this called "symbolic".....in scripture or by the early church.

 

PART III:

This may come as a shock to you, but 75% percent of Christians believe the Mass to be a sacrifice. When you add up the Catholics, Orthodox, Abysinnians, Coptics, Assyrians, Armenians, etc, Protestants are in the minority with their interpretation and they didn't come around until 1500s. Just a side note; interesting but not critical.

The Lord's Supper: The Didache refers to the Eucharist as a thusia, the Greek term for "sacrifice": “Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until they have been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, ‘Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations’ [Mal. 1:11, 14]” (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]). I know this was part of you "vomit" claim, so feel free to call it vomit again, but it is very important church history - A.D 70. Sounds just like of Catholic Mass of 2024 and one I was present at this morning. How awesome is that!

But note the reference to the first chapter of Malachi. This was a prophecy that spoke of worshipers offering incense and a sacrifice on the Lord’s table everywhere to replace those in Jerusalem. The Church Fathers emphasized this knowing that the Eucharist was the fulfillment of it. And again, honest Protestant JND Kelly writes that in the early Church “the Eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian sacrifice. . . . Malachi’s prediction (1:10, 11) that the Lord would reject Jewish sacrifices and instead would have ‘a pure offering’ made to him by the Gentiles in every place by Christians as a prophecy of the Eucharist” . I have the honor to witness this prophecy fulfilled with my own eyes, ears, and smell at least once a week. How awesome is that!

A decade after the Didache was written, Clement of Rome wrote, “Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrifices. Blessed are those presbyters who have already finished their course and who have obtained a fruitful and perfect release” (Letter to the Corinthians 44:4–5 [A.D. 80]).

At the turn of the second century, a bishop and disciple of John the Evangelist wrote, “Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his blood, and one single altar of sacrifice—even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God” (Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr said of the prophecy of Malachi: “God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve, as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering, for my name is great among the Gentiles’ [Mal. 1:10–11]. He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us [Christians] who in every place offer sacrifices to him, that is, the bread of the Eucharist and also the cup of the Eucharist” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 41 [A.D. 155]).


Irenaeus of Lyons (don't recall if I've drug him into this) but in 189, he wrote, “He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] prophets, had signified beforehand. . . .He makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one, for his name is glorified among the Gentiles” (Adv. Heresies [A.D. 189])

 

PART VI:

So thus far we see that the Church believed exactly what the Bible said and taught about this truth from the earliest of times.

Many non-Catholics do not understand the Mass, I get that. TV evangelist Jimmy Swaggart once wrote, “The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Holy Mass is an expiatory sacrifice, in which the Son of God is actually sacrificed anew on the cross” (Swaggart, Catholicism and Christianity). The late Loraine Boettner, the grand wizard of anti-Catholic Fundamentalists (he was nice), said the Mass is a “jumble of medieval superstition.”

They both made that up.

Vatican II puts the Catholic position succinctly:

“At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the centuries until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us” (Sacrosanctum Concilium 47). Can you separate the beauty of Catholic Church with the beauty of Mr. Beottner?


A biblical account of Jesus’ final night with his disciples we read, “And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me’” (Luke 22:19).

The Greek here and in the parallel Gospel passages (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22) reads: Touto estin to soma mou. Paul’s version; Touto mou estin to soma (1 Cor. 11:24). They all translate as “This is my body.” The verb estin is the equivalent of the English “is” and can mean “is really” or “is figuratively.” The usual meaning of estin is the former (check any Greek grammar book), just as in English the verb “is” usually is taken literally. In fairness, some Protestants say the word “is” is used because Aramaic, the language Christ spoke, had no word for “represents.” But Cardinal Nicholas Wiseman has shown Aramaic has about three dozen words that can mean “represents.”

Protestants believe that when Christ says, “This is my body,” he is speaking figuratively, but this interpretation is precluded by Paul’s discussion of the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians 11:23–29 and by the whole tone and context of John 6, the chapter where the Eucharist is promised. The Greek word for “body” in John 6:54 is sarx, which means physical flesh, and the word for “eats” (trogon) translates as “gnawing” or “chewing.” the Bible never states this is a metaphor and no early Christians ever stated it was a metaphor, or symbolic. And again, many were tortured and killed because they would not proclaim that it was a metaphor.



Furthermore, let's go to John 6:60-69 "...on hearing it, many of His disciples said, "this is a hard teaching. Who can accept it"? Jesus - "Does this shock you? What if you see the son of man ascending to where he was before? ........but there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the ones who would abandon him so he said to them, "For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my father". As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former life and n longer accompanied Him. Jesus said to the twelve,"Do you also want to leave?" Simon Peter - "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words for eternal life. We have come and we are convinced you are the Holy One of God".

So am I to believe that many left and abandoned Christ over a metaphor? A symbolic gesture? No, they understood Christ perfectly and clearly, but they could not accept His teaching on the Eucharist and so they left Him. After all, scripture says it's "..a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" What's a harder teaching to believe, a metaphor? Symbol gesture? Or that Jesus Christ meant exactly what he said? He never said..."hey wait a minute fellas, I'm just speaking metaphorically. Come back!" No, he doubled down and let them go. Then turned to ask his Twelve if they wanted to leave Him, too. But Simon Peter had just witnessed Jesus walk on water and work other miracles, so he knew he was Christ. Thus he went on faith and trusted in the words of Christ, though hard to accept. The twelve trusted Christ and His hard teaching, just as Catholics to this day. We have the same faith of the Twelve.

I intentionally skipped John 6:63 because I wanted to come back and give it seperate attention. This verse "...It is the spirit that gives life while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life", is used by many to reject the teaching of the Eucharist. Which I find a little strange because most assume Jesus is speaking of Himself, but he's speaking of you. He's speaking of me. Otherwise His flesh being tortured, His flesh nailed to the cross, His flesh beaten, His skull impaled with a crown of thorns profits nothing? But Jesus was is speaking here of our inclination to think only with our natural human reason instead of the enlightenment that comes with the grace of God, with whom ALL things are possible! (Matt. 19:26). And a quick step back to 6:62 , Jesus describes Himself as the "Son of Man". This identifies Him with the heavenly figure in Daniel (my Dad's name) 7:13. Jesus is referring to His ascension which will take place forty days after His resurrection. Daniel spoke: “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?” Another hard teaching to them. Jesus is conveying that the eternal-life-giving nature of the Eucharist is possible precisely because he is God.

This is why Jesus doubled down on the Eucharist, conveying that his human nature on its own could not provide eternal life, but united with his divine person, body, blood, soul and divinity, it can.

Again, Jesus emphatically told his first disciples that they must eat his body and drink his blood to attain eternal life (John 6:53-58). Here Jesus first reveals the preeminent sacrament, the Eucharist, because it makes present his one Sacrifice of Calvary that culminated in everlasting glory in the heavenly sanctuary, and which his disciples participate in and offer new at every Mass, and therein also partake of him as the New Covenant Passover Lamb in Holy Communion - Tom Nash

I'm glad you shared that you read the Bible and determine its meaning based on a historical grammatical hermeneutic. I base it on much more than a dictionary. I base its meaning on the words of Jesus Christ and all holy inspired words of scripture. And I trust those New Testament scriptures because the ancient Holy Apostolic Church that Christ clearly undeniably established as scripture teaches, canonized the Bible for the whole world, thus the whole world can trust in His Church that those books are infallibly inspired by the Holy Spirit, as again, Christ left us no bible or table on contents for a bible....He left us a Church (Matthew 16:18): “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church”. I can also read the lived out faith of the Early Church Fathers who were viciously murdered for that Church. I can compare my understanding of the scriptures and compare them with the beliefs of the early Christians who many learned directly from the twelve Apostles (I hope you don't try to claim they are wrong, too). I can also read how they read and interpreted scripture; salvation, baptism, the Eucharist, etc. and compare them to scripture and their grammatical interpretations.

I also believe scripture because His Church for over 2000 years really is “the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (Eph. 2:20)



And I believe the holy inspired words of scripture that His church is the “pillar and bulwark of the truth” (Tim. 3:15). Let's think about this for a second. Holy inspired words of scripture, for those who believe in the Bible, says that what elevates and holds up (pillar) the truth and protects that truth (bulwark), is His Church. I know this is a tough for you, but like Simon Peter, will you believe? Or will you take a stick of grammatical hermeneutic dynamite to it? Indeed Christ really did establish a church on earth as the Scriptures clearly teach and “the powers of death shall not prevail against". Where is it?

I also believe the holy inspired words of scripture that teach (Matthew 18:15) Jesus says, “....if a brother sins against you, go and try to convince him.” If you can’t win him over, Jesus says, (verse 16) “Take two or three with you. On the count of two or three witnesses, every word may stand.” And if you still can’t win over your brother (verse 17), Jesus says, “Tell it to the church and if he, the sinner, the one who’s offended, refuses to listen even to the church,” Jesus says, “let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” This is a New Testament scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit. It has no expiration date. What Church could that be? It would have to be a 2000 year old church, not one born after the reformation. Christ sure did give His Church a lot of trust and authority. He must really love her, if you ask me. It must be a church that is united. The first Protestant churches baptized infants (still do). Does yours? Which Church has final say over doctrinal disputes as described in the holy inspired words of scripture? Will you have to use grammatical hermeneutic to get the meaning you seek?


The Bible sure is serious about the gravity of the consequences for not listening to the Church. In the Greek it has the connotation of disobedience. Yin other words, you’re disobeying the judgment of the church established by Jesus......offender becomes an outcast. They’re treated as a Gentile or a tax collector. For the Israel of God in the old covenant, that means you’re a traitor if you’re a tax collector. So you’re not a part of the family. You can’t participate in the covenantal blessings. If you’re a Gentile, obviously you’re outside of the people of God. You can’t participate in the covenantal blessings, as you can as an Israelite. And Jesus is applying that language to the person who disobeys the judgment of the church, implying that if you are such a person, you’re an outcast. You’re outside of the Christian community.

You claim I don't read the Bible in context. I claim the same for you. Protestants are divided into over 40,000 denomination of sects and splinter sects teaching conflicting doctrines. Your formula doesn't work, as Christ prayed His church would be one. God is faithful, but he will also allow to walk away as his followers did in His hard teaching of the Eucharist. But the good news is, he will teach you if approach His words with humility and trust.

 

History

Prior to the (not so) great schism, there were a handful of Bishops/Arch-Bishops/Metropolitans over the major sees/provinces, in Rome, Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, etc. They were all equals with an extra helping of honor to Rome—but the Bishop of Rome was NOT their superior.

Think of it like the Supreme Court—all judges get one vote and are equal, but the Chief Justice gets some extra respect and honor.

The Bishop of Rome unilaterally made some significant changes that were not agreed to by the others. He was not supposed to do that. After rebuke, Rome pulled away and split off from ALL the others. ALL the others stayed together undivided. So actually, the Western Roman Catholic Church split off from the Eastern Church (now known as Orthodox).

We learned it the other way around in school, because our viewpoints look better if the West has the upper hand.

 

Think about it. If one Bishop splits away from ALL the other Bishops, who is causing the split and splitting off from whom. Which ONE of the MANY is causing the schism here…. The MANY are still united together.

IMHO, ALL Churches that can sign on to the Nicene Creed (Orthodox, Catholics, many Protestants) should re-unite. The liturgies/services will look a lot different, but it will be one communion. There will be some theological differences (as there were in New Testament times), but the Nicene Creed sets the boundaries of the reservation.

 

I think you are taking that too hard. I wasn't calling early Christians or what they said "vomit". I used the word to describe how you responded, with such volume and quickness. I shouldn't have used the word because I see now it has taken your attention of the topic.

A dictionary shows what a word means. Catholic is a word we get from the Greek, katholikos, the word in Greek means universal. I'm actually surprised you didn't already know that.

 

I definitely agree with this. But I disagree with the re-presenting aspect, due to Hebrews 1:3

"When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,"

Jesus made purification for sins. The verb is aorist meaning a completed action. Just like you agree with in the quoted paragraph. Being a priest doesn't require a continual giving of sacrifices. That was only one aspect of OT priests. Priests in their most basic function is a go-between. A priest communicates to God on someones behalf. In Christ, we are all priests, and therefore we have direct access to God and are the go-between for the unbelieving world to God. The idea is shown in 1 Peter 2:9

"But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people forGod’sown possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light"

 

Yes. I believe it is metaphor. Anytime anyone uses a metaphor they don't explain themselves as using one, they just use it. All the passages you bring up can reasonably and commonly be understood as a simple metaphor.

 

That is what a historical grammatical hermeneutic is.

 

There were bishops in other cities too. That is why you get Irenaeus of Lyon. He was the bishop of Lyon. But I totally agree with your understanding of the history. There was a primitive church that was more decentralized. Then over time it centralized around the city of Rome in the West. Catholics claim that the early church was the Catholic church but it was really just the catholic (universal) church. There was centuries of development and centralization needed to create the Roman Catholic church.

 

I think that is a fine activity for some activities. But there are still serious theological differences that can't be resolved by consensus. The Protestants split off because of fundamental soteriological issues and then violence which the Roman Catholic church pursued against them.

 

Your’e agreeing with me as I previously stated that it's a completed action, but just like your implication on “It is finished”, you’re out of context. Correct, we are all priest (1 Peter 2:9) “You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation.” …but the Bible also teaches differences between the priesthood of the common faithful and the ministerial priesthood. You can have both, it’s not one or the other. The verse you offered, and I added on to, do not prove there is no ministerial priesthood. They prove Christ is high priest - Amen!

Peter quoted Exodus 9:6 in the verse I offered. In context, the people of Israel are referred to as a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. Peter is directly quoting and applying it to the new Christian church. The Christian church is the new Israel of God, just like St. Paul says (Galatians 6:16). You can correct me, I’m too tired to confirm the chapter and verse. Either way, Jesus never said or implied we no longer need priesthood anymore. You would have to offer a biblical text for me to consider.

Furthermore, Peter is making a direct parallel between the threefold priestly rank of old Israel, and the Christian church. We know there’s a high priest in the new Israel, we agree, Jesus, right? That matches up with Aaron in the old Israel. Hebrews 3:1 confirms Jesus is our high priest, but in the old Israel there was a middle rank (Aaron’s sons), just like there is in the new Israel. Again, your verse does not disprove a middle rank like was lived out in old Isreal. Who would that be though? Well, how about those who serve with Jesus? As Jesus as the high priest, of course. There is a clear distinction in scripture between common priesthood and a ministerial priesthood.

John 20:23: Jesus tells the apostles on the night of the resurrection, “Whatever sins you forgive, they are forgiven, whatever sins you retain, they are retained.” This is a priestly function. Jesus gave them full authority to forgive or not to forgive sins. Jesus the high priest became incarnate for the forgiveness of sin and he is passing that authority as high priest to ministerial priests. New covenant ministerial priest. In the OT God used priestly ministers to try to reconcile them back to Him. He didn’t need them, but thats how God designed it….with ministerial priests. In John 20:23, similarly to God the Father, Jesus breathed on them his full authority to forgive, or not forgive, sins. Did he need to? No, but he continued in his Father’s design. Jesus works in and through them to reconcile NT people back to God. And not just for the early the Christians…for ALL NT people.

Leviticus 5:5-6: Those guilty of sin must take a sacrificial victim and go make sacrificial atonement and confessing of sins. The Israelites had to acknowledge their sins and then took their sacrificial victim to the priest. God in his infinite wisdom, set up the OT covenant in a way that required ordained priests to work through Him with their ministry. Christ followed. The Bible doesn’t teach he eliminated his Father's design. Again, I would have to see a text saying that.

If God wanted, he could have changed His design and had us deal directly and on a total individual level with him…no earthly ministers. But he didn’t. Instead there is John 20:23. Perfectly succinct with the OT.

The Greek verb used by Christ at the Last Supper in his command …”do this in memory of me”, (you know the chapter and verse)…the verb for “do” means “to offer”. Loaded with sacrificial overtones. He’s telling them to do what he is doing at that supper, “eat my body, drink my blood”. According to Hebrews 8:3, offering of sacrifice is a role of priests. This was a distinct role Christ gave to them, and later they gave to others. It wasn’t for every individual to do. It was constituted to them as ministerial priest, not common pretest as in 1 Peter. He gave them two direct priestly duties - the forgiveness of sins (like in the OT) and a sacrificial offering (like in the OT). On top of the OT and the NT, the early Christians understood the role given by Christ, though you reject them. I could quote them but you’ve made it clear how you feel of quotes from early Christians. But they line up with the Churches teaching today. The Fathers write of the prayers a Bishop is to pray when ordaining a Presbyter, when ordaining a Deacon, and one to be used by Bishops when ordaining replacement of Bishops. Here’s a snippet of the ancient prayer from Hyppolytus - “Pour forth now that power which comes from you, your royal Spirit which you gave to your Son, Jesus Christ, which he bestowed upon his holy apostles.” The same Spirit that Jesus bestowed on the twelve, the ordination prayer is requesting the very same Spirit be applied and poured out unto the new Bishop to feed his flock and serve.

Romans 15:15-16 Paul says, “But on some points I’ve written to you very boldly by way of reminder because of the grace given to me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.” He clearly recognized his role as priest and the Greek word he used is “hiereus” - A priest who offers sacrifice.

So we have the words of God in the OT. The words of Christ in the NT, and we have the teaching from the first Christians who many learned directly from the Apostles. I challenge anyone to read those prayers themselves. Thousands of Protestant scholars acknowledge these beliefs of the first Christians. You reject them, but why should we take your word over theirs?

I have a wife and family...will reply to your other comments as time permits.

 

The Gospel According to St. Matthew, Chapter 12

47 Then one said unto Him, “Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand outside, desiring to speak with thee.”

48 But He answered and said unto him that told Him, “Who is My mother? And who are My brethren?”

49 And He stretched forth His hand toward His disciples and said, “Behold, My mother and My brethren!

50 For whosoever shall do the will of My Father who is in Heaven, the same is My brother, and sister, and mother.”

 

Man, you guys are good!

 

The Gospel according to St. Mark (who became the patron St. of Venice), from Chapter 10:

17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?

18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

 

LHC, all I will say is that your argument uses multiple large logical leaps to make your point. It also equates Israel to the Church which I don't agree with and have good Biblical reasons for. I understand in general how the RC church justifies their stances. I studied it rather deeply many years ago, and came away even more satisfied with my Baptist/Bible Church views. Let me give just one example of the problems with the RC argument. You said that Galatians 6:16 means that the church is the Israel of God. Much of your arguments rests on this hinge of connection.

There are 2 very big problems with that interpretation though. Number 1 it is a vague reference without much explanation. It is inappropriate to base fundamental doctrine on a vague statement. It is inappropriate because it gives the interpreter a very large space to add in the meaning you want it to have, this is called eisegesis.

Number 2, even though it is a vague, it should be clear that the "Israel of God" is not the whole church because of the preceding statement "15 For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.16 And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them". Then there is a "," and the phrase "and upon the Israel of God." So there are 2 groups Paul is talking to and both are believers in Jesus. Taking the only context available which is the Galatians, Paul is most likely talking about Gentile believers in his first group and Jewish believers in his second group. That in no way equates Israel to the Church.

 

Nicely done Chop. Ok, you guys are very entertaining and educating.

 

Ha! But always bear in mind, this is just an internet sports message board. Go read your Bible, talk to your minister, priest, etc.

 

First, you never provided a NT verse that proves Christ terminated the ministerial priests (which was our focus of discussion) of God the Father. Again, I agree we are all Priest, but God clearly used different types of priests in OT. And....we see at the Last Supper his son, Jesus Christ, institute a priesthood separate from common priest. Like his Father, Christ maintained different types, though he is the High Priest. I trust in God's infinite wisdom as to why he planned it that way. And the Church Fathers unequivocally believed this, as well.

I base my conclusions on the words written in the NT and the typology between it and the OT, then compare to what the early Christians, specifically the recognized Church Fathers, preached and wrote (they wrote a lot, like 1500 Luther did 1500 centuries later) in the first centuries. This is called the lived-out tradition of the early church. Scripture commands us to hold firm to this tradition, (2 Thess. 2:15) ..."stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter". Protestants read, trust and believe Luther. I just read and trust the early Christians more than you do Luther. Actually, you're Baptist, so you don't really believe Luther either.

Jesus left us no bible, thus the Church needed time to compile the many writings that were claiming inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Thats I why I quote the early Church Fathers...they were direct eye witnesses in the new church. Then I apply the words spoken directly from the mouth of Jesus Christ, regarding his church. Even after the canonization of the scripture, most still could not read. But even if they could, Catholic inventor, Johann Gutenberg, didn't invent the printing press until the 1400s, if memory doesn't fell me. Christ loves us so much he left us a church. Through that Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit, she gave us the NT scriptures. Just like Jesus in the parable of the wheat and the weeds, St. Peter asked for an explanation. Christ then explained the parable. The parable didn't explain itself, so we know the rest of scripture doesn't either. He left us a trustworthy authority of scripture. On the road to Emmaus, Jesus says to some disciples...“beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). St. Luke doesn’t say scripture interprets itself to the disciples. Jesus interpreted it. And again, St. Philip was led by the Holy Spirit to an Ethiopian eunuch (and they were smart!)...“So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ And he said, ‘How can I, unless someone guides me?’ And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him” (Acts 8:30-31). All through scripture we see guides. There is still a trustworthy guide today. Christ didn't leave us to fend for ourselves. I work for a living. I have a family. Some are called to be doctors, nurses, lawyers , plumbers, mothers, teachers, electricians, school bus drivers, etc. Others are blind, deaf, quadriplegic, homeless, depressed, sick, etc; God's plan for everyone is different. Most aren't called to be theologians or ministerial priests. That why he left us a church. A church to guide us. Just like in the scriptures.

Protestantism doesn't have this, thus the 1000s of competing denominations, all proclaiming the truth. The Bible is not self-interpreting, nor does it claim this for itself, as I've seem some attempt. You follow a church started by a man, John Smyth (1600s) that came along almost a 1000 years after Luther (1500s). Not even speaking theologically, in a court of law, who is a better witness for accuracy of the truth for the prosecution or the defense? A direct eye witness, of course.

John Smyth came along, picked up the Bible (which by the way he in no way shape or form, had no part in compiling, testing, and canonizing. Hopefully he at least "thank you". Luther did.) picked it up and claimed everyone has it wrong...he got it right. It's not bad to think for yourself, St. Peter and St. Philip sure did, but they weren't foolish enough to start another religion. I love my Protestant brothers and sisters but they reject one another now, if not Luther. Thats why they keep splintering. and splintering.

You'll reject all of this, of course, and I respect that, but I'll let the readers decide and test for themselves the ancient teachings of scripture, eye witness accounts, and that pesky church that refuses to go away. I did.

 

My comment about large logical leaps was my response. I don't feel the need to prove or disprove something that wasn't well argued. God uses different types of priests in the OT therefore he does so now because He never said He didn't, isn't really an argument as much as presuppositions.

Another very large leap here. You add in a definition of traditions that Paul never gives. In fact the word for "tradition" simply means that which was handed over or communicated. The verse could faithfully be translated as "stand firm and hold to that which was handed over to you which were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." He is simply calling them to remember what he had taught them. All we know of that we find in 1 and 2 Thessalonians and other of Paul's writings.

Protestantism does have this despite the different denominations. In 1 John 2:27 says we have no need for a teacher because God has already given us the anointing (Holy Spirit) as a teacher. Then God also gives us pastors and teachers who have a spiritual gift of teaching to help us out. The Holy Spirit is the ultimate director of our learning and understanding, but he does use men as well.

There are also Baptists of many flavors. There are many Anabaptists and others that I don't agree with much on.

But just as I have the responsibility to read through The Science during a pandemic and determine what studies are the most reliable and how I should best protect myself from getting sick. I also have the same responsibility with the Bible and theology. And yes, I read early church fathers, Augustin, Aquinas, and others to see what they said. I have learned much from all of them. But they are all fallible as I am fallible. The only infallible thing out there is the Bible. So I have to judge what others say based on what the Bible says. God bless.

 

Back in the "Troubles" era in the North of Ireland a Protestant man had passed on and his body was awaiting burial (which needed to happen fast). As it turns out, the local Protestant clergymen from that town and the surrounding villages were in Belfast for some convention. The weather was bad, the roads were nearly impassable, and the phones were down.

Desperate, the deceased man's family reached out to the local Catholic Priest. The Priest was struck with compassion and wanted to help them, but told them that he had to clear it with the Bishop first.

So the Catholic Priest asked the Catholic Bishop: "May I bury a Protestant?"

The Catholic Bishop replied loudly and with much glee: "Bury as many Protestants as you can!!!"

 

Simply it comes down to this; I follow an ancient church that without an intellectual doubt has existed for over 2000 years. An ancient church that canonized the scriptures, and then for centuries maticulously preserved them by Catholic monks until the invention of the printing press in the 1400s. The eyewitness testimonies and writings from the early Church Fathers, received directly from the infallible Twelve Apostles, is undeniably Catholic…as anyone who reads their writings for themselves will recognize. I challenge any honest person to read them and decide for yourself.

You follow the tradition of a man named John Smyth. He popped up some 350 years ago, or so, in Amsterdam. I reject his personal interpretations when they go directly against the ancient teachings of those who were taught by the Apostles, who again taught infallibly. The claim made by some that a vague church canonized the NT scriptures is preposterous, if not blatantly dishonest and desperate. Some Baptists (not all; as they are splintered even amongst themselves) claim descent from the Montanists, Donatists (not to be confused with Dentist), and Albigensians. But they were not Baptists groups under different names….and thats a good thing because all of those were heretics that have since died off. Another false claim that makes its rounds every so often is that they are descendants of John the Baptist…another false claim. I’ve also heard the crazy claim that they were the first Christian church but went into hiding until the Reformation. That one isn’t even worth refuting.

Smyth’s modern denomination is an off-shoot of the English reformation. He picked up the already canonized bible and began his personal interpretations of it to start his church. He invented it in the 1600s and they practiced baptism by affusion (pouring). This is a doctrine they later changed and vigorously defend since the new doctrine was implemented. He relocated them to England at some point. His denomination was founded upon his fallible interpretations of scripture, though off-shoots of the original off-shoot continue. Roger Williams started the first Baptist church in America. He felt no one was qualified to baptize him, so he took it upon himself to baptize himself in 1639. One of other radical teachings compared to the writings of scripture and writings of the early Church Fathers.

Not surprisingly, most of the Baptists sects are found in the US….Baptist Church of Christ, Campbellites, The Dunkards, Freewill Baptists, Old Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit (thats actually a cool name), Primitive Baptists, Seventh-Day Baptists, Six-principle Baptists, Winebrennerians, to name just a few.

I have and trust my guide to proper understanding and interpretation of scripture….even when it’s a hard saying, and you have yours in John Smyth’s church.

 

Sorry, Chop...missed this one.

Great question, Brother! Above my pay grade . They were prolific writers, so my educated guess without researching, he surely he did...but obviously not as known as say the gospel of Thomas.

Now I gotta put my guitar down and go study lol.

 

I knew a guy who quit the business world to become a Catholic priest. He told me (before he went off to become a Catholic priest) that the bulls, orders, and rules propagated by at least some of the Borgia Popes have been declared illegitimate and are were thrown out. Is this right?

And were it not for that infamous family of Spaniards, there probably never would have been a Reformation. There would have been little need for it.