The New Age game plan is here set forth in Alice Bailey's THE RAYS AND THE INITIATIONS which may be read on line at this link:
http://tinyurl.com/37wmgcp
"There are certain areas of evil in the world today through which these forces of darkness can reach humanity. What they are and where they are I do not intend to say. I would point out, however, that Palestine should no longer be called the Holy Land; its sacred places are only the passing relics of three dead and gone religions. The spirit has gone out of the old faiths and the true spiritual light is transferring itself into a new form which will manifest on earth eventually as the new world religion. To this form all that is true and right and good in the old forms will contribute, for the forces of right will withdraw that good, and incorporate it in the new form. Judaism is old, obsolete and separative and has no true message for the spiritually-minded which cannot be better given by the newer faiths; the Moslem faith has served its purpose and all true Moslems await the coming of the Imam Mahdi who will lead them to light and to spiritual victory; the Christian faith also has served its purpose; its Founder seeks to bring a new Gospel and a new message that will enlighten all men everywhere. Therefore, Jerusalem stands for nothing of importance today, except for that which has passed away and should pass away. The "Holy Land" is no longer holy, but is desecrated by selfish interests, and by a basically separative and conquering nation.
The task ahead of humanity is to close the door upon this worst and yet secondary evil and shut it in its own place. There is enough for humanity to do in transmuting planetary evil without undertaking to battle with that which the Masters Themselves can only keep at bay, but [755] cannot conquer. The handling of this type of evil and its dissipation, and therefore the release of our planet from its danger, is the destined task of Those Who work and live in "the center where the Will of God is known," at Shamballa; it is not the task of the Hierarchy or of humanity. Remember this, but remember also that what man has loosed he can aid to imprison; this he can do by fostering right human relations, by spreading the news of the approach of the spiritual Hierarchy, and by preparing for the reappearance of the Christ. Forget not also, the Christ is a Member of the Great Council at Shamballa and brings the highest spiritual energy with Him. Humanity can also cease treading the path to the "door where evil dwells" and can remove itself and seek the Path which leads to light and to the Door of Initiation."
I for one hope to avoid playing into this New Age game plan of pitting all monotheists violently against each other so that they Aryan, blue-eyed pagans can be the Phoenix to arise from our ashes. Eventually it will happen. It is prophesied. But I have no desire to help it along. Jesus said, IT IS INEVITABLE BUT THAT EVIL COME, BUT WOE TO HIM THROUGH WHOM IT COMES."
I deeply respect OMOTS and his opinions, but I believe this time he has not seen this aspect of the New Age picture and how close he and others who are like minded are coming to acting out that portion of THE ARMAGEDDON SCRIPT -- pitting "Old Ager" against "Old Ager." I further suspect the agent saboteur (whom I strongly suspect to be Rick Abanes acting on behalf of Rick Warren) has to have deep connections with what he purports to battle here inasmuch as John Esposito is closely connected to the very people Rick Warren works so closely with at the World Economic Forum as well as the ALLIANCE OF CIVILIZATIONS.
Constance
675 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 675 of 675Anon@10.05pm, you asked:
"How do so many denominations or groups fit in with "one body, one faith, and one baptism" spoken of so passionately by St. Paul? How do they answer Jesus' pray for unity among Christians?"
Denominations are given meanings by their hierarchies, each claiming to be the one true church. This is true equally for big hierarchies like Roman Catholicism and for small ones like recent protestant splinter groups.
But I don't buy a hierarchical model of church. The original church consisted simply of a congregation in each town, run by an internal ruling council of Elders/overseers, autonomous under God. I shall prove this to you from scripture on request (although I have set out the relevant scriptures several times above). Had the church kept to this model then we would not be in the present mess. Personally I believe that God will someday license a persecution that will decapitate the hierarchies. Then there will be only Christians, as He always wished. That is exactly what happened in China: missionaries imported schism into pre-communist China, then communist persecution cut them off and acted as a crucible in which today's Chinese house church movement was forged. This church movement now consists of some 100 million (hallelujah!) persecution-tested Christians on fire for Christ. They do not see themselves as either Catholic or protestant, regarding such terms as relating to European church history. They are my brothers in Christ and I hope that you regard them as yours.
Anon@6.25pm,
I wrote:
"St Peter himself, writing not specifically to congregation leaders: Christians are "a chosen people, a royal PRIESTHOOD."
You replied:
"Yes, we agree with this. We just say that there is also an ordained priesthood."
Then why does your ceremony of ordination use the words: "I ordain you [as a] priest"? Why does Catholicism refer to a 'laity' as distinct from its priesthood? If I ask a Catholic whether he is a priest and he has not been ordained then he invariably says No - why is Rome not taking active steps to teach him otherwise?
"I have already shown from scripture how the ordained priesthood existed. You called it a mistranslation, so it's up to you to come up with early church documents that prove your point."
I called it a mistranslation because it is. Take the trouble to look up a dictionary of ancient Greek.
What is more important? To defend the Catholic Church as the only root to salvation, defend all other denominations or STAND UP TO PREACH JESUS as the ONLY way to salvation.
No church, sect, cult, religion, denomination can save us.
It is only JESUS alone who saves us. We don't need church or denominations etc to receive Jesus as our personal Saviour. It may help point us to Jesus but it doesn't save us!
The way into His immediate presence is now available to all through His blood that was once and for alltime poured out for us to forgive us eternally.
All we need to do is repent (change our thinking and behavior),ie believe mentally that Jesus is who He said He was (The Son of God, the Word of God made flesh, ie fully man and fully God, born by the Holy Spirit within a virgin, not created but always existed as ONE with God, died for our sins, risen physically from the dead, coming back again.
After accepting these things intellectually, you need to receive these things into your heart emotionally, for it says that "even the demons believe but are not saved". You need to be born-again by allowing Jesus into your heart (after confessing to God direct that you are a sinner who needs salvation).
You will then be transformed by having the nature of Jesus inside you, changed by the Holy Spirit to follow Jesus.
LOOK Church etc is an extra and is designed to help in the discipleship process, but it DOES NOT save you. Church is designed for fellowship, but it DOES NOT save you.
"I called it a mistranslation because it is. Take the trouble to look up a dictionary of ancient Greek."
The ordained ministers of the New Covenant are called apostles (cf. Eph. 4:11), elders (Jas. 5:14), bishops (1 Tim. 3:1), and deacons (1 Tim. 3:8ff). They are not referred to directly with the typical Greek word for "priest," which is hiereus.
But the English word priest is derived from the Greek word presbuteros, or "elder." It does not originate from hiereus. The German word priester also has its origin from the Greek word for "elder." So there is etymological reason to say that the elder in the Christian Church was considered to be a priest.
although the standard noun for priest—hiereus—is not used for New Testament ministers, the verb form of hiereus is. And it is found when Paul refers specifically to his ministry as an apostle. He refers to his ministry as a "priestly service":
"Because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service [Greek: hierourgounta] of the gospel of God" (Rom. 15:15–16).
Second, I saw that 1 Peter 2:5–9 is a reference to Exodus 19:6: "and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." This text indicates a universal priesthood in the Old Covenant. Yet in that same chapter, verse 22, we read: "And also let the priests who come near to the Lord consecrate themselves." I clearly saw that there was a universal priesthood in existence in the Old Covenant, but this did not exclude the possibility of a distinct ministerial priesthood as well. Could it be the same in the New Covenant?
"But I don't buy a hierarchical model of church. The original church consisted simply of a congregation in each town, run by an internal ruling council of Elders/overseers, autonomous under God."
Please see my post @6:18 p.m.
This is from a Protestant site.
The English word which historically developed from presbuteros is priest. (With time, presbuteros became prester, and prester became priest.)
http://www.kencollins.com/bible-t1.htm
Another Protestant site.
In the Jewish society of Christ’s time presbuteros was used to refer to the respected leaders of the community, the synagogues and the Jewish Sanhedrin. Such common phrases as "traditions of the elders," "elders of the people," "priests, scribes, and elders," "elders of Israel," are such examples.
http://www.godward.org/archives/Special%20Articles/elders.htm
The English word priest is ultimately from Greek via Latin presbyter, the term for "elder", especially elders of Jewish or Christian communities in Late Antiquity.
The Latin word is ultimately from Greek presbyteros, the word for "priest" being Latin sacerdos, Greek hiereus.
That English should have only the single term priest for both presbyter and sacerdos came to be seen as a problem in English Bible translations. The presbyter is both the minister who presides and instructs a Christian congregation and the sacerdos or offerer of sacrifices, in a Christian context the eucharist, performing "mediatorial offices between God and man".[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priest
bish·op (bshp)
n.
1. A high-ranking Christian cleric, in modern churches usually in charge of a diocese and in some churches regarded as having received the highest ordination in unbroken succession from the apostles.
[Middle English, from Old English bisceope, from Vulgar Latin *ebiscopus, from Late Latin episcopus, from Late Greek episkopos, from Greek, overseer : epi-, epi- + skopos, watcher; see spek- in Indo-European roots.]
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Bishop
The Protestant site.
Bishop is the English version of the Greek word επισκοπος (episkopos), which means overseer or supervisor.
http://www.kencollins.com/glossary/polity.htm
Bishop
Greek: episkopos
In Christianity, the chief priest, overseer of a diocese or a bishopric, which consists of several congregations and priests.
The word comes from Greek, "episkopos" (overseer).
2nd century CE: Emergence of church structures in which the bishop is the highest of the clergy. At this time in history, the terms bishop and presbyter, Greek for "elder", were often used interchangeably. From "presbyter", the term "priest" would be derived.
http://i-cias.com/e.o/bishop.htm
Greek Dictionary Online.
presbytero
(-bí-)
n priest; presbyter
http://www.babylon.com/define/105/Greek-Dictionary.html
episkopos
Bishop
http://www.babylon.com/define/105/Greek-Dictionary.html
Anonymous 4;55 A.M.
Re:"In his chapter on the Albigenses, he admits the bias of his Roman Catholic sources and then proceeds as though it is of no consequence."
But that is not the main point.
Regardless of whether or not McGoldrick assumed bias on the part of his Roman Catholic sources, he nevertheless stated that the Eastern Orthodox said the same things about the Cathari/Albigensians that the Roman Catholics said, and since there was no love lost between the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church in those days, this argues in favor of the credibility of both Christian communions.
But in terms of actual extant documents written by the Albigensians, it is interesting to note that there is a historian named Lynn White, Jr. who claims that as a young graduate student, he was forbidden to write a dissertation on the Catharists at Harvard on account of the paucity of sources for undertaking such a study.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3163104
I am wondering if a possible reason for the scarcity of documentary evidence consisting of the actual writings of the Albigensians themselves may be partly due to the raiding of the secret Vatican archives by Napoleon who carted the whole of the Vatican archives off to Paris. It was brought back, albeit with some key documents missing, in 1817 and has remained in the Vatican ever since.
I would sure like to know what those "key missing documents" were!
Good debate here. I have absented myself from this blog due to the fights between Old Ager and Old Ager,
as Constance describes us anti-New Age people. I agree that it is pretty useless for us to fight if we agree on basics, which basics I usually ascribe to the Nicene Creed,as far as Christian agreement goes, although I also include faithful Jews among the Little Company of God's Own.
I hate Catholic-baiting and I agree that Dave Hunt has bad perspectives He implied that Catholics were not saved if they remained within the church in his absurd book "A Woman Rides the Beast." This book is dangerous because it has some truth and yet some miserable lies, such as implying that Catholics cannot be saved if remaining within the church.
God said in Revelation that a remnant would be saved within all basic denominations, if you take Chapters 1-4 to be a description of the historical churches from Yeshua's time to the present. That
includes, by most interpretations, the Catholics.
Mariel (not anonymous, just unable to confront Google)
Anon@6.20pm,
How then was the NT church constituted? Believers met together in each town. They were led by a council of male presbyteroi (elders) or episkopoi (overseers, the scriptural meaning of ‘bishop’), raised from among themselves and generally married men with family (1 Timothy 3). These Greek words respectively denote maturity and function within the congregation, and refer to the same people (as at Acts 20:17 & 20:28; Titus 1:5 & 1:7; 1 Peter 5:1 & 5:2). Plurals in James 5:14 and Acts 14:23 & 20:17 imply there were several in a congregation. They were backed up by diakonoi (‘deacons’ – servants). A congregation’s founder (an apostolos) might retain authority, but once a congregation was reasonably mature his role was to start congregations elsewhere, and he would soon anyway have passed away to glory.
Re 'priests', I'll post more in a reply to you and several other anons who have commented in the last 12 hours.
Anon@6.18pm,
The Exodus verse quoted by Peter might be a kingdom with priests, or - since Hebrew is highly idiomatic - a priestly kingdom. Your point is interesting and relevant - thank you - but not decisive. What of Rev 1:6, "He has made us [it's a general letter] his kingdom and his priests..."?
It's not surprising that Paul regards his ministry as priestly, particularly if all Christians are priests and Paul was charged with evangelism.
To go further we need to know what *both* words, 'hierus' and 'episkopos,' meant 2000 years ago, not what dictionaries render them in a later era when most English-speakers assumed that priesthood was restricted to the ordained. The two sources for working out the meanings of these words are the classical Greek world (Plato etc) and, above all in this context, the 'Septuagint' translation of the Old Testament Hebrew into Greek from Christ's era. This will require some work and I'll report back later. If anyone else can help...
At the excellent resource perseus.tufts.edu, 'hierus' is consistently 'priest' in Classicism, and 'episkopos' is consistently NOT priest but somebody providing oversight of some sort. The Septuagint is the same; Kochan (Hebrew, priest descended from Aaron) is consistently translated as 'hieros', not as episkopos. It remains to check the Septuagint for 'episkopos' and see if it ever corresponds to Kochan. I have not checked every occurrence but I have looked at several from the post-Aaronic parts of the Pentateuch and the use is always oversight.
I therefore assert, with some confidence, that the Douay-Reims Catholic Bible is wrong to translate Episkopos as Priest, and I question the motives of those who did it.
Anon@6:56 a.m.
Episkopos is not translated as priest but as overseer or Bishop.
Presbyter or presbuteros is translated as priest.
A distinction, I made clear earlier on.
In Greece a priest is still called presbyter and bishop still episkopos.
As in linguistics.
The Rhemis Bible is therefore accurate.
Anon@4:50 a.m.
The NT church consisted of Bishop, priest and deacon.
Anon@7.57am,
The Douay-Reims Bible translates Episkopos as overseer/bishop in some places, but as priest in others where it has no business to as I showed at 6.56am. This all started when a Catholic, presumably not yourself, quoted the following at me further up this thread:
Titus 1:5: For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee
James 5:14: Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.
Acts 14:22-3: And when they had ordained to them priests in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed.
In each case the word translated as 'priest' was Episkopos. A glance at the Douay-Reims Bible at the Catholic "New Advent" website told me that the quotes were from the Douay-Reims Bible.
Anon@8.02am,
"The NT church consisted of Bishop, priest and deacon."
Please prove that from the NT, using the words
episkopos - overseer (also translated as Bishop although in the NT there were many episkopoi per congregation rather than vice-versa)
presbuteros - elder, but the same person as an episkopos
diakonos - 'servant'
hierus - priest
I have gone to some trouble above to establish that these are the unambiguous meanings of those Greek words in NT times, so please don't reopen that issue without first reading the thread over the last 48 hours.
NB Presbyteros and Episkopos respectively denote maturity and function within the congregation, and refer to the same people (as at Acts 20:17 & 20:28; Titus 1:5 & 1:7; 1 Peter 5:1 & 5:2). Plurals in James 5:14 and Acts 14:23 & 20:17 imply there were several in a congregation.
Anon@8:13 a.m.
The distinction is clearly made. It is priest in those verses and Bishop in others such as these.
1 Timothy 3:1
A faithful saying: if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
1 Timothy 3:2
It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher,
Titus 1:7
For a bishop must be without crime, as the steward of God: not proud, not subject to anger, not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre:
It is obvious that there were two different positions in the NT church.
Anon@8.24pm,
Please explain why the same word Episkopos is translated as overseer in some verses and as priest in others in the Douay-Reims Bible, when every use of Episkopos in writing from 2000+ years ago means overseer. (You can verify that for yourself from online versions of the Septuagint and ancient Greek mansucripts.)
Anon@8:21 a.m.
They refer to different positions.
The writings of the early church fathers and New Testament scholars note this distinction.
Anon@8.32am,
If a writer wants to distinguish two different things, he either uses two different words or he makes it *very* clear from context. There is no clear contextual difference between the uses of Episkopos translated as overseer and Episkopos translated as priest in the Douay-Reims NT. You are therefore indulging in eisegesis rather than exegesis. Commentaries by later people are scarcely relevant; it is what the words mean at the time of writing that counts.
"Please explain why the same word Episkopos is translated as overseer in some verses and as priest in others in the Douay-Reims Bible, when every use of Episkopos in writing from 2000+ years ago means overseer. (You can verify that for yourself from online versions of the Septuagint and ancient Greek mansucripts.)"
I just explained it to you. Episkopos is overseer OR Bishop. Not priest. Presbyter is priest.
The online manuscripts make the same distinction.
Titus 1:7 always has Bishop in most Bibles
http://scripturetext.com/titus/1-7.htm
Titus 1:5 is elder or priest. (PRESBUTEROS)
http://scripturetext.com/titus/1-5.htm
"There is no clear contextual difference between the uses of Episkopos translated as overseer and Episkopos translated as priest in the Douay-Reims NT. "
Titus 1:5
Douay Rheims
5 For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee:
Haydock Commentary
That thou shouldst, [4] &c. The sense cannot be, that he was to change any thing S. Paul had ordered, but to settle things which S. Paul had not time to do; for example, to establish priests [5] in the cities, that is to say, bishops, as the same are called bishops v. 7; and, as S. Chrys. and others observe, it is evident from this very place, that the word presbyter was then used to signify either priests or bishops. If S. Jerom here meant that bishops were only placed over priests by ecclesiastical and not by divine institution, as some have expounded his words, his singular opinion against so many others is not to be followed. Wi. — That the ordaining of priests belongs only to bishops, is evident from the Acts and from S. Paul's epistles to Timothy and Titus. It is true, S. Jerom seems to express himself as if in the primitive Church there was no great difference between priests and bishops, yet he constantly excepts giving holy orders, (ep. 85) as also confirming the baptized, by giving them the Holy Ghost by imposition of hands and holy chrism; (dial. cont. Lucif. c. iv.) which pre-eminence he attributes to bishops only. To assert that there is no distinction between a priest and bishop is an old heresy, condemned as such by the Church. See S. Epiphanius, hær. 75. S. Austin, hær 53.
http://www.veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Titus_1:5
Titus 1:7 in Greek.
δεῖ γὰρ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνέγκλητον εἶναι ὡς θεοῦ οἰκονόμον, μὴ αὐθάδη, μὴ ὀργίλον, μὴ πάροινον,
Titus 1:5 in Greek
Τούτου χάριν ἀπέλειπόν σε ἐν Κρήτῃ ἵνα τὰ λείποντα ἐπιδιορθώσῃ, καὶ καταστήσῃς κατὰ πόλιν πρεσβυτέρους, ὡς ἐγώ σοι διεταξάμη
Look them up.
Anon@8.50am
I have already demonstrated the meanings of those words earlier in this thread. Please read it. Presbyteros means Elder. It morphed into Priest only centuries after the NT was written and cannot validly be read back into it. And there were many episkopoi per congregation so this word cannot refer to the later meaning of bishop. That the two words refer to the same set of people is proven at Acts 20:17 & 20:28; Titus 1:5 & 1:7; 1 Peter 5:1 & 5:2. Plurals in James 5:14 and Acts 14:23 & 20:17 show that there were several in a congregation.
Anon@8:50 a.m.
Linguistics, the early church fathers and the Greek language all disagree with your assumptions.
The only way to find out is to access an ancient Greek source. Do you have one?
The translations from the septuagint online even confirm my views.
Anon@8.57am,
Comment at 8.43am and 2nd comment at 9.00am show otherwise. You can't validly read back into scripture what you assume church structure should be from commentaries written later when it has changed. That is eisegesis. The way to proceed is to determine the meaning 2000 years ago of Greek words, then translate the NT Greek faithfully. Too bad if the result does not fit your preconceptions.
Anon@9:12 a.m.
It's more like the results do not fit your pre-conceptions. Do you have the ancient greek words. I am willing to take a long if you do.
Anon@9.15am,
Yes - I am the one who did all that above in detail, looking at the words episkopos and hieros in ancient Greek sources and the Septuagint. See the Perseus site to which I referred a few posts ago. Can you not be bothered to read this thread, or are you trying to waste my time?
Anon@9:22 a.m.
I did not disagree with the Greek meaning merely that there was a distinction between the words episkopos and presbytr. They were not the same.
episkopos in modern greek is Bishop
In ancient Greek it's called Chorepiscopi are first mentioned by the ecclesiastical historian Eusebius in the second century.[1] In the days of the very Early Church, chorepiscopi seemed to have authority in rural districts, but in the second half of the third century they were subject to the urban episcopate, or metropolitans.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Chorepiscopos
pat from manila said...
By looking at the current circumstances, it is very unlikely that the Catholic Church would hunt down all the others. The "Catholic Personality" collectively is not even persuasive nor aggressive.
you do not live in the catholic controlled city i do, nor do you see the absolute aggression the laity here have for others who are not catholic or express a difference of religious opinion that flies in the face of catholic apostasy, they are murderous here, and know how to wound unto death and torture those who are not of them ...
The office of bishop was already quite distinct from that of priest in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch (died c. 107), and by the middle of the second century all the chief centres of Christianity were headed by bishops, a form of organization that remained universal until the Protestant Reformation.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop
Anon@11:56 a.m.
Where in the world do you live?
Anon@11.27am,
The episkopoi and the presbyteroi in a congregation in the New Testament were the same people, as is established unambiguously by looking at Acts 20:17 & 20:28; Titus 1:5 & 1:7; and 1 Peter 5:1 & 5:2. Why two words? One word describes their seniority, the other their function (oversight).
To: 11.43 & 11.59am
Church organisation changed very early from the NT pattern of multiple episkopoi per congregation (see chapter and verse in 2nd of the 9.00am posts), once the faith jumped the culture gap from the Jewish world to the Greek world. But scripture is scripture, and accepted as such by Catholic and protestant whatever else their differences.
"Church organisation changed very early from the NT pattern of multiple episkopoi per congregation (see chapter and verse in 2nd of the 9.00am posts), once the faith jumped the culture gap from the Jewish world to the Greek world. But scripture is scripture, and accepted as such by Catholic and protestant whatever else their differences."
Yes, this is true, but it was seen as an organic development, since the early church did yet have scripture. It was compiled much later on. And was not until the 4th century that was declared canon.
We don't go by Sola Scripura, because the church came before scripture.
Anon@12.44pm,
It might have been seen by some as organic development, but that organic development didn't make it into scripture whereas the multiple equivalent episkopos/presbyteros constitution did.
It is not necessary to assert Sola Scriptura in order to say that whatever comes later must not contradict scripture.
"but that organic development didn't make it into scripture whereas the multiple equivalent episkopos/presbyteros constitution did.
It is not necessary to assert Sola Scriptura in order to say that whatever comes later must not contradict scripture."
1st century- Bishop/Deacon
2nd century-Bishop, Deacon, Priest.
4th century- the cannon of scripture was declared official.
So this church structure came before scripture. Not after.
The NT was written from 50 - 169 A.D. We know from early church writings that they was already a fully functioning church in place before the NT books were done being written.
Anon@1.14pm,
You write:
"1st century- Bishop/Deacon
2nd century-Bishop, Deacon, Priest.
4th century- the cannon of scripture was declared official.
So this church structure came before scripture. Not after."
It didn't come before scripture, it came before scripture was universally acknowledged. That is a very different thing.
"It didn't come before scripture, it came before scripture was universally acknowledged. That is a very different thing."
I don't recall Jesus saying "wait until scripture is declared canon to start a church, or start making disciples of nations."
The Apostles obviously did not think it was paramount.
Anon@4.01pm,
"I don't recall Jesus saying "wait until scripture is declared canon to start a church... The Apostles obviously did not think it was paramount."
Indeed not. But this does not alter the fact that scripture, once recognised, is binding on the church. The church did not write scripture - divinely inspired individuals did that. The church *recognised* it.
Although my reply is logically complete at that point, it would be fairly unfriendly if I did not say something about how the rule evolved in the earliest days. You can see that in scripture itself. The apostles knew that Jesus' words were scripture, didn't they? Then, pretty quickly, the Council of Jersualem (acts 15) settled for all time what else from Mosaic Law to add to His commands. The rest was recognised a bit later, and a few centuries after that the councils basically rubber-stamped what was acknowledged as scripture by the great majority of Christians. (Dissenters made a disproportionate amount of noise, but that is common.)
What we see in the Old Testament is a three-fold priesthood. There is the common or universal priesthood of all Israelites at the bottom (cf. Ex. 19:6), a ministerial priesthood above them (cf. Ex. 19:22, 24; Lev. 1:5), and a high priest at the top (cf. Num. 35: 25).
We thus should expect to find a similar three-fold priesthood under the New Covenant, and we do. There is the common or universal priesthood of all Christians (cf. 1 Pet. 2:5, 9), a ministerial priesthood above them (cf. Rom. 15:16), and a high priest at the top (cf. Heb. 3:1).
Perhaps you are unaware that priests in the Catholic Church are also called presbyters, which is usually translated as "elders" in most English Bibles. They are the elders who guide the Church under the authority of the bishops (called episkopoi in the New Testament).
"Then, pretty quickly, the Council of Jersualem (acts 15) settled for all time what else from Mosaic Law to add to His commands. The rest was recognised a bit later, and a few centuries after that the councils basically rubber-stamped what was acknowledged as scripture by the great majority of Christians. (Dissenters made a disproportionate amount of noise, but that is common.)"
It was impossible for the vast majority of Christians to have regular access to a Bible for at least the first fifteen centuries of Christianity, how could the doctrine of "Bible alone" have been the teaching of the early Church and the standard for Christianity?
Anon@4.29pm,
The Jews managed to know their scriptures pretty well, 1500 years before Gutenberg; Christians should have been able to match them. Memoria was a standard component of classical rhetoric, and rep actors today routinely memorise dozens of parts involving thousands of words each. It is an ability which is not developed today, but we all still have it.
Your first paragraph retrofits the modern Catholic church to scripture, which is not valid reasoning. Instead you have to work out what Greek words such as episkopos and presbyteros in the NT meant to their contemporary readers. I have explained and justified those terms extensively above, and I ask you and readers to read up this thread a little.
Anon@4.19pm,
Ex 19:6 might equally well be a kingdom WITH priests. But in any case, argument by analogy with the OT is not decisive. And why, if the Vatican accepts that all Christians are priests, does its ordination ceremony state that the candidate is "ordained [as a] priest"? Why is the reverse process referred to as laicisation? Why does Rome not labour to correct the misapprehension among pew Catholics that they are not priests? (Just ask them if they are...)
"The Jews managed to know their scriptures pretty well, 1500 years before Gutenberg; Christians should have been able to match them. Memoria was a standard component of classical rhetoric, and rep actors today routinely memorise dozens of parts involving thousands of words each. It is an ability which is not developed today, but we all still have it."
What about people who were illiterate or could not read? Was Christianity only the religion of the literate elite?
"Instead you have to work out what Greek words such as episkopos and presbyteros in the NT meant to their contemporary readers."
The terms were used interchangably for a long time. Peter calls himself a presbyter in his epistle. Paul calls himself both. We see the term used interchanged until the times of Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp when the episkopos is becoming the bishop, the monarchical bishopric we think of today. These offices were not set day one. They evolved. It's interesting to note that the Didache only provides for Bishops and Deacons, never any mention at all of presbyters? In Clement's letters he uses bishop and presbyter interchangeably.
"And why, if the Vatican accepts that all Christians are priests, does its ordination ceremony state that the candidate is "ordained [as a] priest"? Why is the reverse process referred to as laicisation? Why does Rome not labour to correct the misapprehension among pew Catholics that they are not priests? (Just ask them if they are...)"
The Sacrament is called Holy Orders.
This is in the Catechism.
Two participations in the one priesthood of Christ
1546 Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church "a kingdom, priests for his God and Father."20 The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ's mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are "consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood."21
1547 The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, "each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ." While being "ordered one to another," they differ essentially.22 In what sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the unfolding of baptismal grace --a life of faith, hope, and charity, a life according to the Spirit--, the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of the baptismal grace of all Christians. The ministerial priesthood is a means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church. For this reason it is transmitted by its own sacrament, the sacrament of Holy Orders.
Anon@5pm,
"What about people who were illiterate or could not read? Was Christianity only the religion of the literate elite?"
The oral traditions of illiterate cultures are vast - our minds can learn loads, as I indicate that actors do. They happen to learn it from scripts, but they could equally well pick it up verbally. This problem did not impair the faith.
Anon@5.07pm,
You did not quote from the actual words used in the Catholic ceremony of ordination. I did.
"The oral traditions of illiterate cultures are vast - our minds can learn loads, as I indicate that actors do. They happen to learn it from scripts, but they could equally well pick it up verbally. This problem did not impair the faith."
Yes, which means there was an oral tradition, also known as Apostolic tradition. How can scripture alone be the sole rule of faith then? Should it not be scripture and tradition.
Anon@5:12 p.m.
You used the word ordained.
Ordinatio means incorporation into an ordo. In the Church there are established bodies which Tradition, not without a basis in Sacred Scripture,4 has since ancient times called taxeis (Greek) or ordines. And so the liturgy speaks of the ordo episcoporum, the ordo presbyterorum, the ordo diaconorum. Other groups also receive this name of ordo: catechumens, virgins, spouses, widows,. . . .
1538 Integration into one of these bodies in the Church was accomplished by a rite called ordinatio, a religious and liturgical act which was a consecration, a blessing or a sacrament. Today the word "ordination" is reserved for the sacramental act which integrates a man into the order of bishops, presbyters, or deacons, and goes beyond a simple election, designation, delegation, or institution by the community, for it confers a gift of the Holy Spirit that permits the exercise of a "sacred power" (sacra potestas)5 which can come only from Christ himself through his Church. Ordination is also called consecratio, for it is a setting apart and an investiture by Christ himself for his Church. The laying on of hands by the bishop, with the consecratory prayer, constitutes the visible sign of this ordination.
If your question is when are lay Catholics ordained into the priesthood. It's at Baptism.
THE BAPTISMAL PRIESTHOOD
41. Those who have received the new birth in Christ, they have become members of the common priesthood. (C.C.C. # 1268) That is because through the gift of a new heart and spirit, they belong to God. They have become spiritual priests in the invisible kingdom of God on earth. As a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, [1 Pet. 2:9], they are called to participate in the religious services of the Church. Not only do they have a right to participate, but they are obligated in to do so in thanksgiving by their Baptism. (C.C.C. 114
Anon@5.17pm,
I *quoted* the word 'ordination'. Where Catholic bibles use the word the literal Greek is simply 'appoint'.
Anon@5.25pm,
While I'm glad that you accept all believers are priests, the Roman Catholic church does not behave as if this is the case. Its ceremony of ordination declares that somebody is "ordained [as a] priest", strongly suggesting that they were not one before. If you ask pew Catholics whether they re priests they do not reply "Yes, though not ordained" - they reply "No". The Catholic church makes no move to educate them into their priesthood; why not?
Anon@6:38 p.m.
"Its ceremony of ordination declares that somebody is "ordained [as a] priest","
Yes, the ministerial priesthood, which is also called Holy Orders. Hence, the word ordained.
"The Catholic church makes no move to educate them into their priesthood; why not?"
I think that depends on what church they go to. It also depends on whether parents instruct children in the faith or no. Do they take Catechism classes etc.
We hold that there is BOTH a Ministerial and a Universal priesthood of believers.
Anon@6.58pm,
The Roman Catholic church does not live by what it preaches about the priesthood. Ask pew Catholics simply if they are priests. They don't say "yes - but not ordained ones". They say "no". I am glad that the Catholic catechism states otherwise, but if pew Catholics made errors of this sort about the Trinity or about the sacraments then Rome would take vigorous steps to educate them, would it not? Why does it not do likewise in this case?
Let me clarify that when the Catholic rite of of ordination uses the words "ordained priest" it is using the word "ordain" as a verb, not a noun. So the clear implication is that the candidate was not a priest beforehand.
anon@11:56 AM
I'm sorry but I live in a devout Catholic country. I'm not an outsider. If Catholics in you place torture etc then they are pretty much bad Catholics and therefore not the proper measure for Catholicism in general.
Pat from Manila
"Let me clarify that when the Catholic rite of of ordination uses the words "ordained priest" it is using the word "ordain" as a verb, not a noun. So the clear implication is that the candidate was not a priest beforehand."
I have explained where the word ordained comes from. It is used because the sacrament of Holy Orders is when one is admitted into the ministerial priesthood. Please try and understand.
There is a distinction between the common priesthood in Christ and the ministerial priesthood in Christ.
Anon@1.18pm,
I believe I understand the situation, although we might disagree about certain matters. Rome certainly acknowledges the universal priesthood of believers (in line with eg Rev 1:6) in its Catechism, as well as its ordained priesthood. What I am saying is that Rome does not live by its own catechism. Here is why:
1. The Roman rite of ordination states simply that the candidate is "ordained [as a] priest". Had it said "ordained as a priest in Holy Orders", that would be different. But it does not. The obvious implication is that the candidate is not regarded as a priest before.
2. If you ask a pew Catholic whether he is a priest, he does not reply "Yes - but not an ordained one". He says "No". It is inconceivable that Rome is unaware of this fact, yet no steps are taken to remedy it. If pew Catholics made mistakes about the sacraments, a remedial would quickly be read out from Catholic pulpits.
You seem determined to misunderstand me, so here are some specific questions:
* Why does the rite of ordination not specify that the candidate is passing from one category of priesthood to another, and instead use words that suggests he is not a priest before?
* Why does Rome not take steps to remind its 'laity' that they are priests?
Why does the rite of ordination not specify that the candidate is passing from one category of priesthood to another, and instead use words that suggests he is not a priest before?
You still don't get it. It's called the sacrament of Holy Orders hence the word ordained.
* Why does Rome not take steps to remind its 'laity' that they are priests?
This is in the Catechism. It's up to local Bishops and priests to teach it. If they don't, you can't blame Rome.
To Anon@3.32pm
I'm content to let Constance's readers decide for themselves from our exchange.
Anon@2.47pm
Anon@3:34 p.m.
Fair enough, if people want to read things through their own worldview and lens. That's left to them.
* Why does Rome not take steps to remind its 'laity' that they are priests?
"This is in the Catechism. It's up to local Bishops and priests to teach it. If they don't, you can't blame Rome."
It's fairly clear that "Rome" was intended to refer to the Roman Catholic church generally. But actually you can blame the hierarchy in Rome, for their task is to provide oversight of their church worldwide.
Anon@3.48pm
I'm very glad you think so. That freedom was not available in the Middle Ages.
In the interests of getting this thread off 666 posts...
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God... And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life.
nike tn pas cher
true religion canada
tory burch outlet online
bottega veneta outlet
mulberry sale
michael kors outlet clearance
rolex uk
iphone case
gucci outlet online
beats by dre
dior sunglasses
rolex watches for sale
louis vuitton pas cher
true religion uk outlet
oakley sunglasses wholesale
tiffany and co
tory burch outlet online
juicy couture tracksuit
canada goose uk
ugg boots
nike blazer pas cher
jordan pas cher
ferragamo shoes
michael kors outlet clearance
oakley sunglasses uk
beats headphones
coach outlet clearance
polo ralph lauren
toms shoes
air max 90
louis vuitton handbags
michael kors outlet online
ugg boots sale
nike store uk
ed hardy tshirts
czq20160903
fitflops sale clearance
mlb jerseys wholesale
ralph lauren outlet
nike air max
ralph lauren outlet
coach outlet
coach outlet
pandora uk
red bottoms
birkenstock shoes
20170113
fitflops sale clearance
mlb jerseys wholesale
ralph lauren outlet
nike air max
ralph lauren outlet
coach outlet
coach outlet
pandora uk
red bottoms
birkenstock shoes
20170113
air jordan uk
ugg outlet
coach outlet
tiffany and co outlet
nike blazer low
michael kors outlet clearance
ugg australia
coach factory outlet
tiffany outlet
longchamp uk
201701
air jordan uk
ugg outlet
coach outlet
tiffany and co outlet
nike blazer low
michael kors outlet clearance
ugg australia
coach factory outlet
tiffany outlet
longchamp uk
20170114
polo ralph lauren outlet online
supra for sale
mlb jerseys wholesale
cheap ray ban sunglasses
cheap jordans
adidas shoes
ugg boots
cheap oakley sunglasses
air max 95
nike free 5.0
20170114
cheap oakley sunglasses
ralph lauren
supreme clothing
oakley sunglasses wholesale
oakley sunglasses wholesale
coach outlet online
pandora charms
michael kors outlet clearance
michael kors outlet
canada goose outlet online
20180323wanglili
polo ralph lauren outlet
cheap ray bans
michael kors outlet
kate spade outlet
coach outlet store online
coach outlet
fitflops sale
golden goose sneakers
christian louboutin
air jordan shoes
Post a Comment